ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Road Infrastructure

Mark Garnier: What steps she is taking to improve road infrastructure.

Gavin Barwell: What steps she is taking to improve road infrastructure.

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps she is taking to improve road infrastructure.

Julian Sturdy: What steps she is taking to improve road infrastructure.

Michael Penning: The Government announced in 2010 that we were investing £2.1 billion to start 14 new road schemes over this spending review period and to complete eight existing schemes. A further £1 billion of new investment was also allocated in the autumn statement to tackle areas of congestion on the strategic road network.

Mark Garnier: As the Minister will be aware, a number of other projects can have specific local economic impacts. Two such projects are the Stourport relief road and Hoo Brook link road in Wyre Forest. Will the Minister meet me and the leaders of Wyre Forest district council and Worcestershire county council to discuss how his Department might assist in the progress of those two projects?

Michael Penning: I will be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and those council leaders, but I think this is probably a matter for my colleague the Minister for local roads, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). If he can meet them, that will be fine, although, ultimately, these matters are for the local authorities.

Gavin Barwell: Congestion on the A23 is a major problem. Will the Minister or one of his colleagues meet me to discuss what the Department, along with the Mayor of London, can do to improve conditions on that road?

Michael Penning: I am always more than happy to meet colleagues, especially to discuss the A23, which is a much-improved road since the Hindhead link tunnel was opened. The stretch of the A23 about which my hon. Friend is concerned is mainly a matter for the Mayor, but I am more than happy to help in any way I can.

Stephen Metcalfe: The Minister is aware of the importance to the national economy of the Dartford crossing, and he is introducing plans to increase capacity. However, to get the maximum benefit from those improvements work must be done on junctions 30 and 31 of the M25. When will the Minister publish detailed, costed plans for those improvements, which are especially important given the developments that have taken place in the Thames Gateway?

Michael Penning: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe); I apologise for having got the constituency name wrong, but it is a long time since I stood for election in that part of the world. We are currently working on the costings for junctions 30 and 31. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the fantastic investment by DP World at the Gateway port means there will be work at junction 30, and we will publish proposals as soon as we can.

Julian Sturdy: As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, I am deeply concerned about the A64 and the A237 in York. Those vital road corridors are increasingly congested and accident prone and are a major drain on our local economy. Can the Minister give me any information about any future funding for projects, and will he again meet me and a group of local MPs who share my concerns?

Michael Penning: It looks like I shall be very busy with meetings, but I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues as we look for new road programmes for the future. He may not know that I was on the A64 to Scarborough on new year’s day and experienced some of the traffic problems on that day.

Kelvin Hopkins: As the Minister’s constituency is near mine, he will know that we in the eastern region have terrible east-west road links. Is he carefully considering any serious schemes for improving those links?

Michael Penning: Yes, and we are looking very closely at one of the most significant road problems we have: the A14 link across the eastern corridor. We have limited available funds, but I am very pleased that the Chancellor announced an extra £1 billion in the autumn statement. I will be happy to work with the hon. Gentleman at any time to improve the transport links in our part of the world.

Barry Sheerman: Although we always like to hear of the big schemes, is the Minister aware that low-cost engineering schemes save the most lives? They are the best investment and offer the best bang for the buck. In this the United Nations decade of accident reduction, the most likely cause of death for any young man anywhere in the world is a road accident, so will we consider any innovations we might introduce on the roads through low-cost schemes?

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and the fact that he mentions is a sad indictment. Boys aged between 17 and 25 are 10 times more likely to be involved in an accident than a lady of that age. Low-cost schemes are vital, and some of the very low-cost schemes, such as retro-reflective paint on roads, have moved things on a huge amount in the last 10 years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am considering such schemes.

Bill Esterson: The Government have approved construction of the Switch island to Thornton relief road. The land is owned by a number of Government agencies, including the Forestry Commission, the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency and the Highways Agency. Will the Minister encourage his ministerial colleagues to speed up negotiations with Sefton council, so that work can start on the road?

Michael Penning: I am working with other Departments and Ministers. This is a vitally important scheme and we will push it forward as fast as we possibly can.

Julian Huppert: Cycle infrastructure is sadly lacking across the country and that causes a number of safety problems, such as a recent tragedy at King’s Cross and many others around the country. What steps is the Minister taking to improve the quality and amount of cycle infrastructure on our roads?

Michael Penning: Most of the roads I am responsible for are part of the national road infrastructure, and I hope there are no cyclists on that part of the infrastructure. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: cycling is vital not only to local commuting and enjoyment but to the health of the nation. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was listening closely to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Ticket Office Closures

Teresa Pearce: Whether her Department has conducted an impact assessment of the proposal in the McNulty report on closure of ticket offices.

Theresa Villiers: No impact assessment has been conducted of this proposal in the independent report undertaken by Sir Roy McNulty.

Teresa Pearce: Disabled people in my constituency already have trouble accessing work and leisure opportunities in London because Erith station’s London-bound platform has no disabled lift or step-free access. They are advised by the train operating company to travel in the opposite direction for 15 minutes and then change trains. The closure of the ticket office at Erith will further disadvantage this group of people. Will the Minister consider an equality impact assessment on the proposal and reject McNulty’s plans to close ticket offices, particularly at places such as Erith, where disabled people already face a difficult journey?

Theresa Villiers: In considering the recommendations of the independent McNulty report and before any decision was made on changes to future ticket office rules, it would of course be vital carefully to assess the needs of disabled communities and pensioners. That would be a very important part of any decisions made on future reform of ticket offices.

James Gray: The McNulty report identified some 30% savings in real costs across the piece. If that is to be achieved by the closure of ticket offices or in other ways, what will the Minister do to ensure that that money will be passed on not to the rail companies but to the users? The line from Chippenham—the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames)—to London is among the most expensive in the world: more, mile for mile, than the cost of Concorde. We need to cut those rates, and we can do that by saving money on the infrastructure.

Theresa Villiers: We have made it clear that it is vital to get the costs of running the railways down, and it is also vital that the benefits of those cost reductions be shared by both taxpayers and fare payers so that we can give both better value for money. If we can achieve savings on the scale contemplated by McNulty, we could, we hope, see the end of the era of above-inflation fare increases.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Costs impact on fares, as the Minister has just said. In London, Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I expected a more Pavlovian response, Mr Speaker. Mayor Johnson has approved rises on average of nearly 6%, yet Labour mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Much better, Mr Speaker. Both sides of the House appreciate the Labour candidate; I am sure he would be very reassured. Ken Livingstone says he can cut fares by between 7% and 11% because of Transport for London surpluses. Has the Minister had any discussions with Mayor Johnson about the rises?

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman is completely naive in his approach to Ken Livingstone’s proposals on fares. Livingstone’s numbers simply do not add up, and his track record shows that he promises fare reductions and ends up delivering fare hikes.

John Leech: Does the Minister agree that no station operator should be allowed to close ticket offices where there are any real concerns about security and safety as a result of creating an unmanned station?

Theresa Villiers: Certainly, if we were to change the way ticket offices operate, we would need to look carefully at all safety and security consequences, as well as taking into account the concerns of the disabled community and pensioners. However, we do need to look at ticket offices as part of the process of reducing costs on the railways, in order to deliver the better value for money that passengers want. We need to do that because the way passengers are buying tickets is changing. Oyster in London demonstrates that there are some high-quality alternatives to the ticket queue. If we can roll those out
	more widely, which we plan to do with ITSO smart ticketing, that will make a difference to our approach to future decisions on ticket offices.

High Speed 2 (Scotland)

Tom Greatrex: Whether she has made an assessment of the benefits of extending High Speed 2 to Scotland.

Justine Greening: High Speed 2 would serve Scotland from phase 1, through current classic-compatible high-speed trains running on the existing network, with half an hour being taken off journey times to Scotland. Although the Department has made no specific detailed assessment of the benefits of extending high-speed lines to Scotland, I am committed to delivering a truly national high-speed rail network. Of course, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), was up there yesterday having those very discussions.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Secretary of State for her response and trust that her ministerial colleague enjoyed his time in Scotland yesterday and will be back there very soon.
	I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the business case made by CBI Scotland and others about the benefits, including those for business across the UK, of HS2 eventually coming all the way to Scotland. Is she also aware of the concern that has been expressed in the past couple of days that the constitutional uncertainty in Scotland may make that less likely? Does she therefore agree that it is important that that issue is dealt with so that HS2 and all the economic benefits can come to Scotland, and are then followed through?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point and I completely agree with it. Like many Members in this House, I want to see a United Kingdom and one of the ways we can unite our kingdom is through high-speed rail.

Paul Maynard: Is the shadow Minister aware that on this issue we need to consider not only what the British Government can do, but what the Scottish Government can do? Is she prepared to consider allowing the Scottish Government to ensure that they can start to build the high-speed line themselves, using their own money and at no cost to English taxpayers?

Mr Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to relegate or demote the Secretary of State.

Justine Greening: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I do not need to allow the Scottish Government to do that; they already have the ability to get on with starting the preparatory work for a Scottish high-speed line if they want to do so.

Louise Ellman: The real benefits of high-speed rail will come from taking the line beyond Birmingham. What commitment can the Secretary of State give to extending the line to Leeds, to Manchester and then, possibly, to Scotland?

Justine Greening: I hope that I can give the hon. Lady a firm commitment, and it is one that she will doubtless have seen in the Command Paper itself.

Gary Streeter: May I encourage the Secretary of State not to consider extending HS2 to Scotland and instead to place that investment in improving rail capacity to Plymouth and the far south-west? We are now without an airport and, as the motorway stops at Exeter, we desperately need to increase our rail connectivity to the rest of the country.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend raises the very important question of value for money. The Scottish Government have already said that they are willing to fund a high-speed rail link within Scotland, and of course I will make sure that I strike the right balance between developing any high-speed network further and maintaining our investment in the existing railway network.

Rail Franchises (Scotland)

John Robertson: What discussions she has had with the Scottish Government on the renewal of rail franchises for services from and to Scotland.

Theresa Villiers: The Secretary of State has not yet had the opportunity to discuss rail franchising with the Scottish Government, although I have had a number of such meetings. There are also regular contacts on rail franchising between the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland at official level.

John Robertson: I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware not only of the possibility of a referendum in Scotland, but that the ScotRail franchise comes to an end in 2014. Does she agree that when deciding on a new contract the Scottish Government should consider the fact that ScotRail has had the highest level of customer complaints and a fourfold increase in overcrowding at a time when prices are rising by 6%? Will she note that the company’s boss is a leading Scottish National party supporter and contributor?

Theresa Villiers: I certainly noted the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about ScotRail. I will take them on board and officials will be happy to raise them with Transport Scotland.

Stephen Mosley: The west coast main line franchise, which serves the west of Scotland, is up for renewal next year. What consideration have bidders for the franchise been asked to put in place to ensure that no disturbance is caused by the construction of HS2, either at Euston or in the London area during the period of that franchise?

Theresa Villiers: It will be a very important part of the planning process for the construction of HS2 that every effort is made to minimise the disruption on existing rail networks. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why building a new high-speed rail network is a better option than seeking to eke more capacity out of the existing west coast main line, given the decade of disruption that
	passengers suffered on that. There will be an impact on Euston, but a huge amount of effort is going to be put into ensuring that that is minimised.

High Speed 2 (Scotland)

Graeme Morrice: What discussions she has had on the route for High Speed 2 and its possible extension to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Justine Greening: The former Secretary of State held discussions with Scottish Ministers regarding a potential extension of High Speed 2 to Scotland last year. As I said, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), was up there yesterday and we expect to have further discussions with the Scottish Government to identify and evaluate options for developing high-speed rail further in the future.

Graeme Morrice: I hope that the Under-Secretary, who was in Scotland yesterday discussing rail issues, took the train to Scotland. The Scottish Council for Development and Industry’s recent survey of leading Scottish businesses demonstrated overwhelming support for extending high-speed rail to Scotland because of the significant economic benefits that it will bring. Will the Secretary of State now give a clear commitment that Scotland will be included in the development of the project from the earliest stage possible?

Justine Greening: Yes.

Iain Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that taking the route of High Speed 2 through Heathrow will be important in achieving a modal shift for domestic passengers travelling from Glasgow and Edinburgh to London?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right and that is why the second phase of High Speed 2 will see a spur to Heathrow. It is also wise to point out that the first phase will see Birmingham airport effectively connected to High Speed 2, too.

Stephen Timms: I hope that we will see direct trains from Scotland to Paris and Brussels. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the current proposal is for only a single-track interconnection between High Speed 1 and High Speed 2 and is she open to imaginative ideas to make better use of existing capacity to allow a proper two-track link between the two future high-speed links?

Justine Greening: The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we have plans to connect those two high-speed tracks in part of the first phase and his question demonstrates the opportunities for growing that capacity in future years. I think it shows why high-speed rail is so vital to the future of not just the capacity of our rail network but our economy.

Nigel Mills: There is great interest in the east midlands about where the route of HS2 and the east midlands station will be located. Will
	she bring forward the timing of the first announcement of the plans so that we can all understand the potential benefits and downsides of the route?

Justine Greening: The timelines are that we will get some initial advice on potential routes later this year, which will enable us to start having those discussions with local stakeholders and that, by 2014, we will have a preferred route on which we can formally consult. I hope that over the course of this year the sorts of discussions my hon. Friend mentions will be able to take place.

Ian Austin: Have the discussions about extending the route to Scotland included considering bringing the fast trains through Birmingham and into the black country, an area that has the largest concentration of manufacturing companies anywhere in Europe? That measure would enable the Government to deliver on their commitment to rebalancing the economy in favour of manufacturing and would cost much less than the alterations she has made to the route to allay the concerns about farms and fields in the home counties.

Justine Greening: The decision I announced earlier this week was my final decision on the route of phase 1, but I was in Birmingham yesterday and one thing that came across very clearly to me was the broader benefits of High Speed 2 for the whole region, including the black country. Of course, by providing more capacity, it will free up capacity on the existing rail network, which will particularly help that part of the country.

Speed Limits

Jo Swinson: What plans she has to encourage the use of 20 mph speed limits.

Norman Baker: I recognise the value that 20 mph speed limits can bring in some locations, particularly outside schools, but it is for local authorities to decide whether and where to implement them. Last October, I took steps to make it easier for every English local authority to introduce 20 mph zones and limits more efficiently and with less bureaucracy.

Jo Swinson: I thank the Minister for that reply. Bishopbriggs in my constituency is trying to become Scotland’s first 20 mph town and, as research shows that the risk of children being involved in an accident is reduced by two thirds in 20 mph zones, that is understandable. I congratulate the Minister on the changes he has made. Of course, that improvement does not apply in Scotland, so may I ask what discussions he has had with his Scottish counterparts about the success of the scheme? It would be excellent if the Scottish National party Government followed suit, to the benefit of towns such as Bishopbriggs and others.

Norman Baker: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, this is a devolved matter so I have had no such discussions with Scottish colleagues. There are 2,000 20 mph schemes in England and evidence from the British Medical Journal shows a significant reduction in casualties and collisions of about 40%, a reduction in the number of children
	being killed or seriously injured of 50% and a reduction in casualties among cyclists of 17% where there are 20 mph limits in London. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to pass that information back to the Scottish Government.

Robert Buckland: Many residents in my constituency, like me, support the increased use of 20 mph speed limits, but we are finding that the time over which designation takes place is still inordinately long. I know that the Government have made welcome proposals, but are there any specific observations that my hon. Friend would like to make to assist my local authority in making speedier decisions?

Norman Baker: As I said in response to the initial question, we have made changes as part of the road signs review, “Signing the Way”, to make the introduction of such limits and zones more efficient and less bureaucratic. It is now possible to use roundels on the road rather than repeater signs, which saves money and is quicker to introduce. We are also looking at the requirements on local authorities to advertise road changes in traffic management terms.

Winter Salt Stockpiles

Robin Walker: What assessment she has made of whether stockpiles of salt for winter resilience have increased since 2009.

Helen Grant: What assessment she has made of whether stockpiles of salt for winter resilience have increased since 2009.

Justine Greening: Total salt stock holdings in Great Britain at the start of December last year were just over 2.7 million tonnes, including strategic stockpiles of 539,000 tonnes. This is a significant improvement on the stock levels held in 2009 and is due to the actions that this Government have taken on winter resilience.

Robin Walker: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that very reassuring answer. Will she join me in commending local authorities such as Worcestershire that have not only increased their stocks but have also adopted new technologies such as the use of brine and GPS monitoring to make sure their reserves go much further? Is it not right that in these difficult times in preparing for cold weather councils should be innovative and creative in doing more with less?

Justine Greening: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I very much welcome the preparations that Worcestershire county council and other local highway authorities have taken to be prepared for severe winter weather. I also commend Worcestershire for taking on board the guidance that was published through the UK Roads Liaison Group in December 2010, which related to the sorts of things he has talked about.

Helen Grant: What other winter resilience plans does the Secretary of State have for Kent commuters?

Justine Greening: In addition to the measures I just outlined in relation to increasing not only the level of salt we have but our ability to get the most effective winter resilience out of that salt stock, we are also investing to make sure that our rail companies are far better able to cope with bad weather. That includes making sure that we have more de-icing trains as well as better technology for existing trains to de-ice as they run. That will be particularly beneficial to my hon. Friend’s constituents.

Metal Theft

Karen Lumley: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on metal theft from railways and motorways.

Norman Baker: I am in close discussions with ministerial colleagues from the Home Office and other Departments about the severe impact of metal theft on transport and more generally. We are actively discussing measures to tackle this, including amendments to legislation. We are also working with the police to establish a dedicated metal theft taskforce.

Karen Lumley: I thank the Minister for that answer. Network Rail estimates that by the end of 2011, railway passengers will have suffered half a million minutes-worth of delay as a result of metal thefts. Those delays are discouraging people from using railways and Redditch is looking to improve business links. What assurances can the Minister give to businesses in Redditch that this House will legislate to protect the UK economy from this crime?

Norman Baker: The Home Office is the lead Department for legislation, but all Government Departments are fully seized of the need to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency. Discussions are taking place about options. This issue affects not only railways but the highway network and the coastguard service, for example. Most despicably, the theft of cable in the Vale of Glamorgan recently forced the cancellation of 80 operations.

Maria Eagle: As passengers up and down the country could tell the hon. Gentleman, performance on Britain’s rail network is getting worse and metal theft is a major factor. On the basis of the Department’s own figures, metal theft is set to cause up to 7,000 hours of delay this year. When are the Government going to act?

Norman Baker: The Government have already acted with the measures announced by the Chancellor in his recent statement to appoint the special taskforce to which I referred. As I have mentioned, there are also ministerial discussions taking place across Departments. I assure the hon. Lady that discussions are taking place. Particular proposals are being considered and evaluated and there will be an announcement quite shortly, I hope.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman is right to recognise the importance of this issue, but passengers want to see action, not just discussion and a taskforce. With passengers facing rail fare rises of up to 11% and given that the
	Department calculates that this issue is costing Network Rail more than £16 million every year and a further loss of £10 million in economic cost to passengers and the economy, when will the Government listen to Network Rail, agree to legislate to tackle the illegal market in scrap, and ban cashless transactions?

Norman Baker: Under the 13 years of the hon. Lady’s Government nothing much was done to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 and we are now taking action on that front. The issue of cashless payment was referred to by my ministerial colleague the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), at Home Office questions on 12 December. He said that he was looking at dealing with a situation where cashless payments ought to be removed. As I mentioned a moment ago, discussions are very active—very live—and I hope there will be an announcement in the near future.

Nicky Morgan: As chairman of the all-party group on heritage rail, may I say that this matter affects heritage railways up and down the country? They often rely on volunteers and charitable donations and I add my voice to those urging quick action on the problem.

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the impact on heritage rail. With the Bluebell railway partly in my constituency, I am very well aware of the impact on individual bodies such as that, which are sometimes less able to respond financially than the public sector. I am afraid that all sections of society are being affected by selfish metal theft and it is important that we take action to deal with it.

Transport Spending (North-East)

Chi Onwurah: What proportion of central Government spending on transport is spent in the north-east.

Norman Baker: According to the latest figures published by the Treasury, of the £10,380 million spent on transport in the UK directly by central Government in 2010, £293 million was spent in the north-east, which was broadly comparable with expenditure in the preceding years under the Labour Government. An additional £363 million was spent by local authorities, with some of the funding coming from central Government.

Chi Onwurah: The Minister referred earlier to the transport spending announced in the autumn statement, but the Institute for Public Policy Research found that of that only 0.04% was spent in the north-east. The Government will be spending £2,731 per head in London compared with a mere £5 in the north-east, and we know that high-speed rail will not even get as far as Leeds until 2033, so will the Minister look at decentralising transport spending so that the north-east does not continue to be left behind?

Norman Baker: First, we are looking at decentralising transport spending. Secondly, the proportion of expenditure in the north-east is not particularly out of line with the
	population there. Thirdly, the IPPR report to which the hon. Lady refers is not complete; it did not, for example, include the December announcements on local major projects and did not take into account the further £1 billion from the regional growth fund. It is not a complete analysis.

Alan Beith: One way of improving the north-east’s share of transport expenditure would be to bring forward schemes to dual dangerous single carriageway sections of the A1 that have already been prepared by the Highways Agency. Will my hon. Friend discuss with his ministerial colleagues the urgency of bringing forward some of those schemes as soon as we can?

Norman Baker: I am happy to say that the discussion has already taken place to some degree. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), is looking at those schemes as we speak.

Speed Limits

Greg Knight: What plans she has for future use of variable speed limits.

Michael Penning: Mandatory variable speed limits will continue to be used as part of the management of traffic on controlled and managed motorways on the strategic road network. Three schemes will be started this year and there will be a further 10 schemes by the end of 2015.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. We heard calls earlier today for the greater use of 20 mph speed limits, but is the Minister aware that often the danger that justifies a 20 mph limit is transient, such as outside a school, where the danger is present only briefly during the school day—in the morning, at lunch time and in the afternoon? As we already have the lowest speed limits in Europe, will the Minister encourage local authorities to make greater use of variable 20 mph limits so that once the danger has passed the limit will default to 30?

Michael Penning: That is exactly what is being looked at in the Department at the moment. On the motorway network, where variable speed limits help us to sweat the assets, where we can stick to national speed limits we shall continue to do so.

Northern Hub Railway

Eric Ollerenshaw: What progress has been made on the northern hub railway project.

Theresa Villiers: The Government have given the go-ahead for the construction of the Ordsall chord and the electrification of the north trans-Pennine route between Manchester and York via Leeds. These schemes will allow faster trains between the north-east, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. Network Rail is undertaking
	further work on the remaining northern hub schemes. We will consider these in developing the Government’s high-level output specification for rail investment from 2014 to 2019.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we could complete all parts of the scheme it would be a tremendous demonstration of our continued commitment to further investment in the existing rail structure and to further investment in the north-west?

Theresa Villiers: This is exactly the sort of issue that we will consider in preparing our HLOS statement. I recognise the crucial importance for the northern economy of improving rail connections in the north. That is why we have already given the go-ahead to such important parts of the northern hub—earlier than many expected—and we will of course look very carefully at the whole project. It certainly looks to have a good business case, but delivering it will depend on what is affordable.

Topical Questions

Gavin Barwell: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: Earlier this week I announced to Parliament my decision on High Speed 2, giving the go-ahead to a national high-speed network that will dramatically increase capacity and reduce journey times between our cities. Over Christmas, negotiations were concluded on a £188 million deal between Southern and Bombardier which will see 130 new carriages ordered from the Derby-based manufacturer. The Minister with responsibility for roads announced a £2.7 million investment in 3D laser-scanning technology. Before Christmas, I announced funding approval for a further 21 local authority major schemes, on top of the 20 schemes announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. The total Department for Transport contribution for all 41 schemes will be up to £972 million.

Gavin Barwell: My right hon. Friend referred to the procurement by Southern of more than 130 new carriages. Is that not fantastic news for hard-pressed commuters from my constituency and for Bombardier, its employees and its supply chain?

Justine Greening: I absolutely agree. This is a win for everybody concerned. Southern will deploy the new vehicles on its most overcrowded services, which will be of huge benefit and relief to passengers.

John Woodcock: Today’s excellent report from the Transport Committee highlights the scandal of dodgy whiplash claims that are hiking up insurance premiums for honest motorists. Why, just a couple of months ago, did the right hon. Lady’s colleagues reject Labour’s amendments to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill which would have curbed whiplash claims? In light of today’s report will she reconsider that opposition?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman would be better directing his question to the Ministry of Justice, which leads for the Government in this area. I very
	much welcome the Select Committee’s report and the work of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in raising the issue. The Government are already taking action to ban such things as referral fees. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will work very closely with the Ministry of Justice to see what action we can take on this issue.

Nicky Morgan: Last month the Department announced funding for a number of road projects, including the Loughborough inner relief road. I thank the Secretary of State for that decision, for which we have been waiting 40 years. Does she agree that road infrastructure is critical for the regeneration of towns and cities such as Loughborough?

Justine Greening: I absolutely agree. The investment that we have been able to put into Loughborough will make a critical difference to Loughborough, not least in helping to regenerate the town centre, improving public transport access and reliability and, importantly, improving accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities.

Jim McGovern: I am sure that most hon. Members would agree that for many visitors to any town or city in the UK their first impression, and perhaps their last, will be of the train station. Will the Minister use her good offices to ask ScotRail, Network Rail and Dundee city council to look at improving Dundee’s train station?

Theresa Villiers: As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, this is a devolved matter over which I have no direct power, but I am happy to raise it with ScotRail and Network Rail if he would find it helpful.

David Morris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the announcements on HS2 and the longevity of the railway system in this country. May I press her to find out what steps are being taken to open up access on the west coast main line link so that passengers from Carnforth can get to London?

Justine Greening: As my hon. Friend may be aware, high-speed rail will enable capacity on the west coast main line to double, and Network Rail is now able to review the ability to use that released capacity to provide better services for constituencies across the country, hopefully including his own.

Graeme Morrice: The Secretary of State will be aware that many of the rail enhancement projects in Scotland, including the Edinburgh Glasgow improvement programme and Borders Rail, are being funded by borrowing against the value of Network Rail’s regulatory asset base, which is of course a Great Britain-wide asset. Does she agree that those projects and many in the future would not happen in a separate Scotland, given that there would be no GB assets to borrow against?

Justine Greening: That is one of many questions of this nature that a push towards an independent Scotland would raise. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise his concerns about the destabilising impact that
	independence would have, where none of the benefits hoped for by those who want independence would be realised, but many of the downsides would absolutely come to fruition.

Fiona Bruce: Road crashes are the biggest single killer of young people aged between 17 and 25 in this country today. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Cheshire safer roads partnership’s “Think, Drive, Survive” scheme, which brings officers into schools to teach young drivers about better road safety? What more can the Government do in this respect?

Michael Penning: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that I have done that excellent scheme in Cheshire and have the certificate on the wall in my office. One of the things we can do is ensure that the test taken before someone is given a driving licence is fit for purpose and that it is not simply a case of passing a test, but of giving the skills everyone needs, particularly young people, to be able to drive and enjoy the road safely.

Julie Hilling: Driver fatigue and sleepiness is a major cause of road accidents, and it is estimated that one in six lorry drivers suffers from sleep apnoea. Does the Minister have any plans to increase health checks on lorry drivers to diagnose sleep apnoea?

Michael Penning: This is a condition that I have known about for many years, as I used to be a heavy goods vehicle driver, and it is something I am looking at now. The hon. Lady has met me and knows that we are working on this. I look forward to bringing forward proposals so that we can ensure that an industry that is already very safe is even safer in future.

Duncan Hames: Chippenham station lacks disabled access, in large part due to restrictions on modifying buildings and structures considered to be historically important—I wonder what Brunel would think of that. Does the Minister agree that such heritage concerns ought to be applied proportionately so as not to frustrate either access to the railway or, indeed, impose an unreasonable financial burden on achieving it?

Norman Baker: I agree with that proposition. One of the problems is that the Victorian infrastructure, which is marvellous in many ways, was not built with the needs of present-day communities in mind. The full Access for All programme is continuing, and I think that it should be possible in most cases to improve access while respecting the integrity of such buildings.

Derek Twigg: All parties support the proposed new Mersey Gateway crossing, but there is concern that local people will have to pay a toll to cross the bridges. I believe that they should continue to pay nothing. My big concern is that the deal that the Government have offered Halton borough council means that they will take 70% of any excess revenue from procurement savings and 85% of any
	excess toll revenue, which will leave the council little room for manoeuvre to discount local tolls. Will the Secretary of State please look at this again?

Justine Greening: I think that the deal we struck with the hon. Gentleman’s local council is the right one, and one that it signed up to. It enables it to get on with the new crossing, which will provide welcome extra capacity for many people in the area.

Elizabeth Truss: The A47 is a vital strategic route from east to west, but in many places it is still single carriageway. Does the Minister agree that it needs to be upgraded to a national strategic route, as it was before the previous Government downgraded it?

Michael Penning: I am very aware of the significance of that road. This is something we are looking at and will continue to look at as we develop plans for future road improvements.

Cathy Jamieson: I continue to receive representations from constituents regarding the Government’s plans for MOT tests. What assurances can I give them that concerns about safety have been taken into account, and what plans has the Secretary of State to update us?

Justine Greening: I will be announcing the next steps on those plans very shortly and can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that, as with any decisions I take, safety is of paramount consideration.

Philip Hollobone: May I thank the roads Minister for his interest in and commitment to the £110 million expansion of the A14 around Kettering, and, given its proximity to the town of Kettering itself, urge him to include as many noise reduction measures as he can when the scheme is constructed?

Michael Penning: I had a fantastic visit to Kettering and looked at the roads programme that is going to be developed, as well as at the town centre redevelopment, which is a huge success. We will ensure that noise reduction is part of the plan, so that the local community benefits from the new road and is not encumbered by it.

Kerry McCarthy: In Bristol, the city council is being forced to make savings of £2 million, directly affecting its subsidy to First Bus. Routes are being cancelled, operating times are being cut and fares, which are already far too high, are still rising. What efforts are Ministers making to ensure that local bus routes remain operational and affordable?

Norman Baker: I had thought that the hon. Lady might have written to congratulate the Government on the major investment programme in Bristol which we announced at the end of last year, with a number of schemes going ahead. But in terms of buses, she might have written to congratulate the Government also on the new “better bus area” programme, which includes an extra £50 million for buses, £20 million for more green buses and more money for community transport.
	So there is a lot of money going into buses, and we are doing a great deal to protect bus passengers and to improve bus services.

Amber Rudd: I know that the Minister is aware of the importance to economic growth of the Hastings to Bexhill link road, which he is now considering. Is he also aware of the enormous lengths that its promoters have gone to in order to mitigate environmental concerns, including the proposed building of dedicated tunnels for dormice that might have to cross the road?

Justine Greening: I was not aware of the proposals relating to dormice, although I very much welcome them. I have had many representations from people in that region about the importance of the scheme. We are considering them very carefully now, and I hope that we can announce our final decision on the scheme shortly.

Margaret Beckett: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although there is a welcome on both sides of the House and in the city of Derby for her decision on the Southern contract, and indeed hope for her decision on eVoyager, the real touchstone of the Government’s approach to rail procurement will be the handling of Crossrail and, in particular, whether its financing is handled as was the Thameslink project? I know she has that in mind, and I hope that she can give us a favourable answer on it today.

Justine Greening: I am very pleased that the right hon. Lady has welcomed the deal that was struck between Southern and Bombardier. I had her in my thoughts on the day of the announcement, because I know how much difference it makes to the city that she represents. I assure her that I take incredibly seriously the negotiating process, ensuring that it is fair for all people involved including bidders such as Bombardier, and I will now work very closely over the next months and years with all people who want to bid for the important Crossrail procurement and ensure that that is fair. We have seen that when Bombardier bids for contracts, as it does, it can be successful.

Alun Cairns: Almost 50 years have passed since the 70 mph maximum speed limit was introduced, and in that time there have been significant advances in motoring technology. When does the Minister expect to announce the outcome of her review of the matter?

Justine Greening: I shall announce it very shortly, and we are absolutely committed to striking the right balance between looking at the important issues that my hon. Friend has just raised and doing what we can to maintain and, indeed, improve motorway safety.

Shabana Mahmood: Will the Secretary of State reject the previous Transport Secretary’s comments that high-speed rail would be affordable only for business passengers, and will she reassure passengers that the new high-speed line will be both affordable and accessible?

Justine Greening: I want to be absolutely clear: my predecessor was very clear that the new high-speed rail line needed to be a railway that was beneficial to all
	people, including of course business people who want to use it. The business case works on an assumption of standard rail fares, as we have on the current network, and I am absolutely clear in my mind that the way in which we are going to make high-speed rail successful is by having as many people use it as possible—and that means having value-for-money fares.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Tax Credits

Jonathan Ashworth: What assessment she has made of the effect of changes to tax credits on the income of women.

Theresa May: We have had to take tough decisions to protect the economy. The UK has an unprecedented budget deficit, and spending on tax credits has become unsustainable. The savings from changes announced in the autumn statement allow us to take further steps to protect the most vulnerable, including significant increases in child care support to help women and families to get back into work.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Secretary of State will be aware that the median income of households with children is set to fall in real terms, so does she think it fair that a family with children are set to lose £1,250 annually, whereas a family with no children are set to lose £215?

Theresa May: We are aware that things are difficult for families. That is why the Government are taking a number of steps to help families, such as cutting fuel duty, freezing council tax and taking more than 1 million people out of paying income tax altogether, more than half of whom will be women.

Gloria De Piero: On protecting women’s income, what safeguards are in place to ensure that charging people to use the Child Support Agency does not push mums who cannot afford to pay into further hardship?

Theresa May: I have had a number of conversations with the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) on the arrangements for access to the Child Support Agency. I am happy to say that the Department for Work and Pensions has put arrangements in place that, I believe, will make access affordable for women. We are taking steps to ensure that, in particular, women who have been subject to domestic violence are catered for.

Dieting

Jo Swinson: What discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the effect of dieting on the health of women.

Lynne Featherstone: I meet ministerial colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues, including health, dieting and the body confidence campaign. Being at a healthy weight is important in
	helping people to reduce the risk of serious illness. The Government are committed to helping people to reach and stay at a healthy weight.

Jo Swinson: It is January, which means that adverts in women’s magazines everywhere are promoting diets and miracle weight-loss plans. The inquiry of the all-party parliamentary group on body image has heard evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists that not only do 90% of diets not work, but that for people who are susceptible, dieting can trigger eating disorders. How can the Government successfully promote fitness and healthy eating patterns against the onslaught of bad advice to skip meals, cut out food groups and obsess over every calorie, with all the negative health consequences that that creates?

Lynne Featherstone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she and the APPG do on body image issues. It is important that the link between dieting and eating disorders is looked at closely. She rightly mentions that 95% of diets fail. As a Government, we believe that a diet is not just for Christmas but must be about one’s lifestyle. The best advice is common sense. It is to eat healthily all year round and take appropriate amounts of exercise.

Angus MacNeil: Dieting and calorie counting can be positive as well as negative, as has just been pointed out. A positive development might be to have calorific information on alcoholic drinks as well as the unit count. Have the Government given any consideration to that?

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I will take it up with the appropriate Minister.

Philip Hollobone: Given the beneficial effects of breastfeeding on weight loss and on the baby’s health, and that Britain has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates of any country in Europe, what work is the Minister doing with the Department of Health to encourage women to breastfeed their babies?

Lynne Featherstone: The issues around breastfeeding are very sensitive. We have to find the balance between raising the benefits that breastfeeding can bring and not making people who feel that they cannot breastfeed feel bad about it. The hon. Gentleman raises two important points about weight loss and what is best for babies. It also has benefits in relation to allergies. I work with the Department of Health on all these issues.

Diana Johnson: It has long been a Liberal Democrat policy to make personal, social and health education compulsory in schools. That could include body image classes. Does the Minister regret that the coalition Government have set their face against making PSHE compulsory?

Lynne Featherstone: The Government are reviewing PSHE. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about body confidence. The Media Smart programme for schools is voluntary, but it has had the greatest ever number of downloads of any such programme. We should also use the big society and have other groups going into schools. Not everything should rest on teachers’ shoulders.

Violence Against Disabled People

Anne Begg: What assessment she has made of the effect of Government policies on efforts to tackle violence against disabled people.

Maria Miller: The Government take seriously tackling hate crime against disabled people, and violence in particular. We are meeting the coalition commitment to improve the recording of such crimes and working with voluntary sector partners to encourage more victims to come forward.

Anne Begg: Disabled people report an increase in the use of insults such as “scroungers” and “cheats” aimed at them, which reflects the language used by many media outlets when reporting the Government’s own welfare reform. What action will the Minister take to stop the Government adding to the perception that anyone on benefit is fleecing the system and is an acceptable target for such verbal attacks?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, because I agree that the use of such inflammatory language is not acceptable, and the Government will not use it at all. We believe strongly that it is the system that has trapped disabled people in a spiral of welfare dependency, and that is why the overhaul of the benefits system is such a priority. I hope that we can rely on her support for our work in that area.

Tom Brake: May I ask the Minister to examine MAMA—“Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks”—which is a new system for reporting hate crime against Muslims, to see whether its use would be appropriate in relation to the reporting of hate crimes against people with disabilities as well?

Maria Miller: I am sure that we can learn a great deal from many different areas about how to improve the recording of hate crime, which is still a work in progress. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the work that we are doing with organisations such as Radar to increase third-party reporting of hate crime, but I will certainly take up his suggestion.

Yvette Cooper: I know that the Minister is deeply concerned about violence against disabled people, and she will be concerned by the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) raised about reports of increasing threats of violence against disabled people. She will be concerned also about the fear of many disabled groups that that is being fuelled by the tone of some of the Government’s remarks and their approach. There is a fear that certain elements of the Welfare Reform Bill, for example, have crossed a basic line of decency. In that light, will the Minister look again at the measures that the Lords voted on yesterday, and particularly at the Government’s proposal to deny young people who have been disabled since birth and who cannot work the chance of getting contributory employment and support allowance?

Maria Miller: I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing up this issue. She is absolutely right that it is important that discussion of the Welfare Reform Bill is undertaken in an appropriate manner, although I think she is wrong in believing that the measures that we have put in the Bill are in any way adding to the problem. If we did not make the changes that are included in the Bill, which were voted on in the other place yesterday, where does she anticipate that we would make the substantial necessary savings?

Women in the Economy

Nadine Dorries: What steps she is taking to increase the role of women in the economy.

Theresa May: Using the skills and qualifications of women who are currently out of work would deliver economic benefits of £15 billion to £20 billion a year for the UK. The actions that we are taking, for example through the Work programme and our support for women’s enterprise, will ensure that that untapped potential can be used to stimulate economic growth.

Nadine Dorries: A year on from Lord Davies of Abersoch’s report on the number of women in boardrooms, minimal progress has been made. It seems amazing that men who can run boardrooms, businesses and banks so effectively are unable to introduce policies of fairness and equality. What further does the Minister think can be done to encourage organic change within businesses, banks and boardrooms and avoid a demeaning and degrading measure of quotas and shortlists?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for making the point that the best way to get change is not to impose a quota on a country but to encourage people to recognise the talents that exist within their companies. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asks what is happening, and I am about to answer that, because it was one of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) raised. Since 1 March last year, 27% of board appointments to FTSE 100 companies have been female, and we are now down to only 10 all-male boards in the FTSE 100. Progress is being made as a result of Lord Davies’s report, but of course we continue to monitor the matter and will continue to work with companies to encourage them to use the talent available from the women who are in those companies and can be appointed to their boards.

Jenny Chapman: Does the Minister agree with the independent report published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last week, which shows that on average, the Government’s decisions weaken the incentive for those with children to undertake paid work?

Theresa May: What I would say to the hon. Lady is that the Government are already taking steps to ensure that we can help women into the workplace, particularly in the Work programme and the work that we will be doing through business mentors to help women who
	wish to set up their own businesses. The most important thing that will in due course help to ensure that women can get into the workplace, by making work pay, is the introduction of the universal credit.

Fiona Bruce: At the recent north-west women’s enterprise day in my constituency, 200 inspiring women who had started up their own businesses or were about to were given an excellent range of advice. What can be done to roll out that kind of scheme across the country, and in particular to encourage women to take the critical step from not just working in their businesses, but employing others and creating jobs?

Theresa May: I commend the women’s enterprise action that was taken in the north-west. That is a very good example of what can be done at local and regional level to ensure that we encourage women to use their full potential in the economy, which is to their benefit and that of the UK as a whole. Our introduction of business mentors is one thing that will help women not only to set up businesses, but to grow them in a way that will lead to them being employers.

Domestic Violence

Iain McKenzie: What assessment she has made of the effect of Government policies on efforts to tackle domestic violence against women.

Lynne Featherstone: A progress review of the Government’s approach to tackling violence against women and girls was published on 25 November. It highlighted many of our achievements to date in relation to domestic violence, including, among many other measures: providing £3.3 million funding for multi-agency risk assessment conference co-ordinator and independent domestic violence adviser posts locally until 2015; introducing a requirement for multi-agency reviews after every domestic homicide; and piloting domestic violence protection orders in three police force areas.

Iain McKenzie: I recently visited a Women’s Aid project in my constituency. Is the Minister aware of the crisis in accommodation for women fleeing violence? Such projects have been left with little choice but to advise vulnerable women on how to minimise harm if they are forced to sleep on the streets.

Lynne Featherstone: I understand, with all that is going on in this age of austerity—there is not enough money to fund everything—that there are issues around some of the funding for women, but the Home Secretary and I could not have been clearer about the priority that the Government place on tackling violence against women, by ring-fencing £28 million of funding and by sending a loud and clear message to local authorities that they should not look for soft targets.

Mary Macleod: Does the Minister agree that it is important to give priority for council housing to women who have suffered domestic violence? Will she work with the Housing and Local Government Minister to encourage councils to give them top priority?

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. If there is nowhere for a victim of domestic violence to go post coming out of a refuge, we are not solving any of the problems. I am happy to do as she suggests.

Kate Green: Safe, secure accommodation is essential, as the Minister knows, for women fleeing domestic violence, and she must be aware of the concerns of providers of refuge accommodation such as Women’s Aid, which has talked of chaos in commissioning and its anxiety about the removal of the ring fence on the Supporting People grant, which means that refuges face cuts in funding of as much as 50%. Does she share my concern that the Government’s proposal to remove the support element from housing benefit payments and transfer the money to local authorities without protecting it for housing support is another nail in the coffin of a nationally funded network of refuges for women?

Lynne Featherstone: I would point out to the hon. Lady that the ring fence around the Supporting People budget was removed under the Labour Government,
	and that that £6.5 million budget has been cut by only 1%. If local authorities are not using it appropriately, I suggests she takes the matter up with them.

Lorely Burt: What action are the coalition Government taking to help victims of domestic violence who come here on spousal visas? They desperately need help but have no money and no recourse to public funds.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. People who come on spousal visas—they are generally but not exclusively women—are left in a very vulnerable situation when they find themselves victims of domestic violence. The previous Government began the Sojourner project, which provided some breathing space for those women. We have continued and extended that project pending a long-term solution, which we are working on with the Department for Work and Pensions—[ Interruption. ] Mr Speaker, are you coughing at me? [ Laughter. ] I think I’ll quit while I’m ahead.

Mr Speaker: I have never coughed at the hon. Lady, and I was not intending to start, but I am grateful for her compassionate concern for the state of my health. If she had wanted to finish the answer, she could, but she doesn’t, so she won’t.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 16 January—Opposition day [un-allotted day]. There will be a debate on individual voter registration, followed by a debate on the national health service. These debates will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Tuesday 17 January—General debate on the future of town centres and high streets. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Wednesday 18 January—Consideration in Committee of the Local Government Finance Bill (day 1).
	Thursday 19 January—Motion to approve European documents relating to integrated EU infrastructures, followed by motion on public bodies—scrutiny of draft orders—followed by continuation of debate on national policy statements relating to ports.
	Friday 20 January—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 23 January will include:
	Monday 23 January—Opposition day [un-allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Tuesday 24 January—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Local Government Finance Bill (day 2).
	Wednesday 25 January—Motion to approve a European document relating to EU criminal policy, followed by: the Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration.
	Thursday 26 January—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 19 and 26 January 2012 will be:
	Thursday 19 January—Debate to mark Holocaust Memorial Day 2012.
	Thursday 26 January—Debate on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on football governance.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for that explanation of the packed legislative programme that he has brought to the House of Commons for the start of the new year. I notice that he has not announced the date for the Queen’s Speech, despite the fact that Paul Waugh of PoliticsHome announced it on his blog last week. We wait to hear some time in the future whether he was accurate.
	We learned this week that the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill is being taken on the Floor of the House—virtually the only Government business to be taken on the Floor in the next couple of weeks. The House of Commons Library has confirmed that over the past 30 years, only five local government Bills have been treated in this way: the 1984 and 1985 Bills that abolished the Greater London council; the 1987 Bill on block grants and rate limitation; the 1991 Bill on
	rate capping; and the 1999 Labour Bill that finally restored democratic government to London. Will the Leader of the House explain what in this local government Bill requires it to have its entire Committee stage on the Floor of the House? The Government are obviously struggling to fill the Commons calendar, so in the spirit of new year bonhomie, and wanting to help the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask him whether he could make time for a debate on the Government’s mishandling of their legislative programme?
	On fat cat salaries, the Prime Minister, in his new year tour of the TV studios, announced that shareholder votes on executive pay would now be binding. However, in November he announced that his idea to address exorbitant boardroom pay was to appoint more women to boards, and in October he told us that the solution was boards asking themselves, “Is this the right thing to do?” Over the past year we have had plenty of press releases from No. 10, but FTSE 100 bosses have put their own salaries up by a staggering 49%, while average earnings have gone up by just 1.4%. To prevent the Prime Minister from touring the TV studios once a month with the latest wheeze, will the Leader of the House explain to him that if he is serious about dealing with fat cat salaries we need action, not more press releases? When will we get it?
	Perhaps the Leader of the House could also have a word with the Chancellor and inquire when we can expect a response from the Treasury to Will Hutton’s report on fair pay in the public sector. In June 2010 the Chancellor announced—in yet another press release—that this was an “important review” and that it would pay a “crucial role” in developing Government policy. Will the Leader of the House enlighten us as to what has happened since the report was published 10 months ago?
	Given the defeat that the Government suffered last night on their shocking plans to deny benefit to cancer sufferers, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the tiny band of Liberal Democrats who joined Labour and the “Cross Benchers” in standing up for decency and fairness? Rather than using parliamentary time in this place to reverse the three votes that the Government lost last night, may we instead have a debate on fairness, to remind the Liberal Democrats why they claim they came into politics in the first place?
	The Leader of the House will understand the concern over the safety of PIP implants. The Secretary of State for Health announced yesterday a “rapid review” of the safety of people seeking cosmetic interventions. Can the Leader of the House confirm when the review will conclude, and will he assure us that the Health Secretary will make a statement to the House when it does?
	The House is growing weary of rapid reviews being announced by press release. Last November, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) promised that the Government would publish by the “end of the month” proposals to clamp down on the access that lobbyists have to the Government. Since then we have had Mr Collins of Bell Pottinger boasting of the access to those at the top of Government that he can arrange for his clients, and now Mr O’Shaughnessy, one of the Prime Minister’s top aides, has signed up to another lobbying firm. What we have not had is the promised consultation. The last time the Leader of the House was asked about this, at
	the beginning of December, he told the House that the Government would publish proposals “in a few weeks”. Given that the consultation is now long overdue, will the Cabinet Office Minister return to the House to explain what has gone wrong? And while he is at it, will he also explain the Government’s policy on freedom of information?
	Before Christmas the Information Commissioner launched his first ever probe into a Government Department, because the Education Secretary and his advisers were communicating using the Education Secretary’s wife’s e-mail account. Given that the Secretary of State announced this week—not to the House—a new policy on information technology lessons in schools, perhaps the Leader of the House could arrange for his colleague to have some IT lessons himself, so that if he wants to communicate secretly with his advisers he can set up his own e-mail account, and will not need to use his wife’s.
	Finally, Mr Speaker, may I wish you and all Members a happy new year? Will the Leader of the House join me in urging all Ministers to adopt a new year’s resolution to make announcements to this House first? After all, the ministerial code requires them to do so.

George Young: I begin by echoing the hon. Lady’s good wishes to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House, for a happy new year. She began in a traditional way by asking about the Queen’s Speech. I am delighted that she is looking forward to the next one, which will be packed with legislative reform from the coalition Government, and I hope that she will warmly welcome it when it arrives. She will have to contain herself for a little longer, however. The date of the Queen’s Speech will be announced in due course in the usual way. In the meantime, I have given hon. Members some certainty about the House’s sittings: I have announced them up to October this year. By contrast, my predecessor gave the House two weeks’ notice of the Easter recess in March 2010. The House now has a degree of certainty about when we shall meet, and hon. Members can plan their work-life balance accordingly.
	On Parliament’s work programme, I hope that the hon. Lady is not going to denigrate the work that the House is doing. This week we had two statements on Tuesday, on the referendum in Scotland and on High Speed 2. We had a statement yesterday on breast implants, as well as two Opposition day debates; I hope that she is not going to say that those were not worth having. Later today we shall have two important debates arranged by the Backbench Business Committee. As I have said before, this place is not a legislative factory. We are not going to make the mistake that the previous Government made of introducing too much ill-considered legislation.
	The hon. Lady asked why we were having the Committee stage of the Local Government Finance Bill on the Floor of the House. I have in front of me a list of 18 non-constitutional Bills that went to a Committee of the whole House between 1997 and 2010, so let us not have any nonsense about this being unprecedented.
	Let me give just one example of what the previous Government did. The Digital Economy Act 2010—50 clauses and three schedules—was rushed through the House during wash-up, without consensus, on the Floor
	of the House. Here we have a 10-clause Bill with three schedules and we are allowing three days for Committee. I hope the House will support what we are doing, as more than 600 experts on local government will be at hand here and able to take part in the Bill’s proceedings.
	On executive pay, let me remind the Opposition that they did nothing about it for 13 years. By contrast, we consulted and we will set out in our response the action we will take to tackle irresponsible directors—something Labour did not do—and we are going to require greater transparency for directors’ pay and salary. We shall give shareholders a greater say through binding votes, and allow them to block unjustified pay-offs for failure. An announcement will be made in due course by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. I will, of course, pursue the matter of fair pay and the Government’s response with the Chancellor, and find out the date of the response for which the hon. Lady asked.
	There will, of course, be an opportunity for the Government to consider in this House yesterday’s votes on the Welfare Reform Bill in the other place. I make the simple point that if we do not reverse those amendments we will need to make savings from other areas. Of course the Government will look carefully at what has happened in the other place. It is worth making the point that the amendments that were carried would not have affected the position of those in the support group—the most vulnerable—whose entitlement to benefit would remain unaffected. Nor would the Government’s proposals have affected those on means-tested benefits. It is a question of getting the balance right on the extent to which applicants draw on their own resources or on the resources of taxpayers. Let me remind the hon. Lady of what the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech of 10 January:
	“in these times, with less money, spending more on one thing means finding the money from somewhere else. When someone wins, someone else loses.”
	She might like to remember that when we come to debate those amendments.
	On yesterday’s statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, he announced three reviews in connection with what went wrong with the breast implants, and I know he will want to keep the House informed as those reviews make progress.
	I am surprised that the hon. Lady raised the issue of lobbying. For 13 years the Labour Government did nothing about lobbying, yet she now criticises us for taking time to come up with the paper on our proposals. The consultation document will be published shortly, and there was no breach of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments rules by Mr James O’Shaughnessy.
	Finally, I have announced an Opposition day on Monday, and I wonder whether the Opposition are going to compound the confusion they caused with their last one. On Tuesday their leader talked about responsibility regarding the deficit, but just hours later the Opposition voted against our modest measures for sorting out the mess in local government finance. On the very next day they tabled two motions that, far from reducing the deficit, would have increased it. They opposed every cut and promised to spend an extra £87 billion that we do not have, and they were in denial about the mess they created when they were in government. I wonder whether the time has not now come for another relaunch by the Opposition.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. A large number of colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, and I am keen to accommodate them. I remind the House, however, that two important debates are to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, so it is imperative to have brief questions and characteristically brief answers from the Leader of the House. I am sure that a Member who has served for 28 years will set us a good example: I call Mr David Amess.

David Amess: Paul Gilson, a local fisherman, was recently fined £400,000 for bureaucratic mistakes in relation to his catch. Will the Leader of the House allow us a debate on the issues surrounding quotas for small fishing vessels?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s constituent’s concern about what happened. As my hon. Friend will understand, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a particular case. I imagine that, as with all decisions of a court, this man will have an opportunity to appeal against what happened. As I understand it, the confiscation orders are simply designed to put anyone who has profited from an illegal catch back into the position in which he or she would otherwise have been; they are not intended to be a punishment. I hope my hon. Friend will understand the constraints on Ministers when it comes to commenting on individual cases.

David Winnick: Would it not be more appropriate for Ministers to give serious consideration to the amendments that were carried yesterday in the House of Lords? Perhaps we could have a statement before the normal parliamentary procedure becomes involved. Does the Leader of the House not agree that to take action against cancer, bone and stroke patients is totally unacceptable? Indeed, it is sick. I heard the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on the radio today trying to justify what has occurred, but I hope that the Cabinet will give further consideration to the matter. What has been agreed to by the House of Lords should be agreed to by the Government.

George Young: As I said to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), the Government will give serious consideration to the votes that took place in the other place yesterday. We have asked Professor Harrington to work with Macmillan to ensure that the work-related assessments are appropriate, although it should be borne in mind that the worst cancer cases would be in support groups and would therefore not be affected. Government amendments tabled to the Bill yesterday would have protected those whose condition subsequently deteriorated. Of course we will consider the matter seriously, but as I have said, if we do not make savings by means of that part of the Bill, we may have to seek compensatory savings elsewhere.

Edward Leigh: Although it is good that there is less legislation pouring through the House of Commons, we still do not have enough time to debate issues on great occasions. For instance, before the Prime Minister went off to the last European summit, all that we had was a little debate in Westminster
	Hall—which, admittedly, served its purpose in a way. Can the Leader of the House confirm that before the next European summit there will be a proper debate on the Floor of the House, as happens in other Parliaments, so that the Prime Minister can gauge opinion in the Chamber about his negotiating tactics?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but he will know that as a result of the recommendations of the Wright Committee, the time that the Government had in which to arrange such debates has been transferred to the Backbench Business Committee, as has responsibility for finding time for them, and the other debates for which the Government used to find time. It is to that Committee that my hon. Friend and others should apply, because it now has the time that the Government used to have.

Meg Hillier: Is the Leader of the House aware of a growing tendency for Departments to give insubstantial answers to parliamentary questions in order to conform with the time scale? For instance, between 27 May 2010 and 9 March 2011, 53% of answers given by the Department for Transport were non-substantive, as were 41% of those given by the Ministry of Defence and 67% of those given by the Home Office. The failure to give real answers is a continuing problem, and I hope that the Leader of the House will take it up with Departments in order to ensure that Members receive proper responses to their questions.

George Young: The hon. Lady is right: the House is entitled to prompt and informative answers from Ministers in response to written questions. I do not know whether she had an opportunity to raise the issue during the Transport questions session that has just ended, but, as Leader of the House, I do take steps to ensure that my colleagues answer questions promptly. I believe I am right in saying that we publish statistics each year on the performance of Departments, and I am always prepared to take up specific cases on behalf of Members.

Anne McIntosh: The Leader of the House has just announced that the first draft orders resulting from the Public Bodies Act 2011 will be considered next week. You will recall, Mr Speaker, the exchange that we had on a point of order relating to this matter before the House rose for the Christmas recess. Is the Leader of the House now able to confirm that the Select Committees concerned will be given notice before the orders are laid on the Floor of the House, and that a full 60 days will be allowed for consideration of each order by each Select Committee? Will he also make good the promise of a draft water Bill before prorogation?

George Young: I will pass on the last question, because I am not conscious of having personally given such a commitment. As for the serious issues raised by my hon. Friend in connection with the Public Bodies Act, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House—who, I believe, will be handling the debate next Thursday—will be able to respond to them, and to inform her of the progress that we are making in moving to a new regime for consideration of the draft orders that follow from the legislation.

Mark Durkan: The Leader of the House may not want the Chamber to be seen as a “legislative factory”, but nor should it be seen as just a political wii game in which many points are scored but nothing substantial is achieved. Once the session of keepy-uppy in which the Chamber is currently engaged has ended, will it be able to give commensurate consideration to the important issues in the Welfare Reform Bill that are being subjected to serious deliberation and amendment in the other place?

George Young: I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that the coalition Government have sought to be more generous than the last Government in allocating time for their programme to be dealt with on the Floor of the House. We have allowed two, and in one case three, days for the Report stages of important Bills, and we intend to maintain our good record of giving the House adequate time in which to consider legislation. That commitment also extends to important amendments that have been passed in another place.

Roger Gale: I personally welcome the fact that, unlike their predecessor, the present Government are providing the House with adequate time in which to scrutinise legislation properly. More is not necessarily better.
	No doubt my right hon. Friend, as an early riser, listens to “Farming Today”, and will therefore know that a significant number of Europe-wide farm animal welfare issues are the responsibility of Ministers in the House of Commons. Will he find Government time for a general debate on those issues in the Chamber, so that they too can be considered properly?

George Young: My hon. Friend will have heard me announce two debates on Europe-related matters on the Floor of the House arising from consideration by the European Scrutiny Committee. I will take his suggestion on board, but he may wish to ask the Backbench Business Committee for a more general debate.

Luciana Berger: At the beginning of this month the Government’s new web application system for the blue badge came on line. Ministers said that it would save money and lead to easier renewals, but it has been riddled with technical problems. Applications have been delayed or sent to the wrong place, which has caused chaos and backlogs, and councils have been unable to deal with the problem because the system is under the auspices of an IT contractor for which the Department for Transport is responsible. May we have a urgent statement from the Government on what they are doing to sort out this mess—which has been caused by their own mismanagement—so that those who need blue badges can secure them as soon as possible?

George Young: The hon. Lady may have had an opportunity to raise precisely that issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport during Transport questions earlier. [Interruption.] As she was unable to do so, however, I will raise it with my right hon. Friend, and will ensure that I obtain a response. It is in everyone’s interest for those who are entitled to blue badges to be able to gain access to them without too much hassle.

Peter Bone: A seven-year-old boy in my constituency called Zac has a very rare cancer called neuroblastoma. As a result of help from the former Labour Health Minister Ann Keen and my local primary care trust, treatment became available in Germany and was paid for by the NHS. Recently Zac needed another life-saving operation. It was decided that the operation should be carried out by the NHS in this country, but unfortunately it was cancelled twice. In desperation, Zac’s mother took him to Germany, where he had the operation yesterday. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health next week, telling us what went wrong in this country and whether the parents’ costs will be reimbursed?

George Young: I am sure the whole House hopes that Zac makes a good recovery from the operation that took place yesterday, and I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made more resources available to the NHS year on year, and responsibility for funding the costs of transport from this country to Germany would normally lie with the local primary care trust. However, I will try to establish whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can play a role in ensuring that the parents can maintain suitable contact with their son.

Michael Connarty: I wish to ask the Leader of the House a question about his own remit. When Labour was in power and I was chairing the European Scrutiny Committee, he seemed to support the idea of reinstating permanent membership of the General Committees that debate EU issues sent to them by the European Scrutiny Committee. I have asked him several times—and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has supported my request through the Committee—for the matter to be brought before the House. He has had plenty of time to arrange it, and there is plenty of room in the timetable. When will permanent membership be reinstated, so that people can learn properly about European business in General Committees?

George Young: I commend the hon. Gentleman’s work on that issue. I would like to pursue the discussion through the usual channels, and then come back to him.

Lorely Burt: Given the increasing number of schools offering A-levels, there is an increasing anomaly with VAT, in that schools do not pay it but sixth-form colleges do. The Treasury has rejected requests from the Sixth Form Colleges Forum and others to rectify that. With VAT standing at 20%, may we have a debate to explore ways to equalise the situation and be fairer to sixth-form colleges?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. There will be an opportunity on Monday to raise this issue with the Secretary of State for Education. For now, I think the appropriate answer to my hon. Friend is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in the process of drawing up his Budget, the date of which has been announced, and I will take her request as a bid for him to consider that matter as part of his broader Budget considerations.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind the Leader of the House that in this year of the jubilee and the Olympics there are diverse regions in our country, and many people in Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east and north-west get the feeling that everything is happening either in London and the south-east or in Scotland? Is it not about time that we looked at the Cinderella regions that get less investment, less focus and, now, less leadership?

George Young: Many parts of the country are benefiting from the construction work on the Olympic stadium in London; the benefits go far wider than just the south-east. I also hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have introduced measures to help the regions, such as the regional economic growth fund and concessions on national insurance to certain parts of the country, as well as measures to help those parts of the country that are worst hit by unemployment. I do not agree that the leadership in our country is entirely confined to London and the south-east as there are many parts of the country with first-class leadership, and it is up to Members of Parliament who represent the regions to do what the hon. Gentleman has done: stand up in this House and fight for the areas they represent.

Gavin Williamson: Last year, all in South Staffordshire celebrated the fantastic news that Jaguar Land Rover was going to build a new engine plant in my constituency, in one of the Government’s new enterprise zones. May we have a debate on how we might promote more manufacturing in the west midlands, so we can build on that success?

George Young: I am delighted to hear of the good news in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he reminds the House that the 24 new enterprise zones will come on stream in April. They will bring a range of benefits, including access to capital allowances, business rate relief and new superfast broadband. That is a part of our strategy of rebalancing the economy by encouraging manufacturing and thereby getting a more sustainable foundation for the growth in employment that we all want.

Barry Gardiner: At a recent meeting of the Sustainable Business Forum, it became clear that UK Trade & Investment had no strategy for green economic development under the local enterprise partnerships. Indeed, UKTI was not even aware that eight of the partnerships have been designated specifically for green economic development, and its website is still showing Vestas as one of the key British flagship companies in green economic development. May we have a debate in Government time about the Government’s strategy for green economic growth in this country?

George Young: The Government are indeed committed to green economic growth, and a number of the measures taken by the Department of Energy and Climate Change have been designed precisely to ensure that. I will take up the specific issue the hon. Gentleman raises about UKTI to see if anything needs to be done there, and I shall draw his point to the attention of my ministerial colleagues at both DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Anne Main: May we have an urgent debate on the number of roads that are not brought up to adoptable standard by developers? This is a nationwide problem. There are roads in my constituency that have been awaiting adoption for 10 years, and Taylor Wimpey is refusing to engage with the local authority. We must debate this issue, especially if we are going to increase housing development in this country.

George Young: I suspect that many other Members have also encountered precisely that problem, where residents living in recently developed estates find that the roads are still in the ownership of the developer, that they are not up to a standard that the local authority will take over, and that the developer will not bring them up to the appropriate standard. I will contact my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government to see if there are any steps that the Government need to take to ensure private developers honour their obligations, often under section 106, so that the residents on such estates have roads of a quality to which they are entitled.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs initially promised to publish in 2010 a report on the humaneness and effective use of snaring and then, in response to a written parliamentary question, said she would release the report by the end of last year. We have still not had the report, however, which is preventing debate on this issue not only in this place, but in the Public Petitions Committee of the Scottish Parliament. While the Government are in an enabling mood in respect of Scotland, please will the Leader of the House press for the report to be published?

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. There will be an opportunity next Thursday to ask the Secretary of State about that report. I will make sure that Ministers in that Department are aware of the hon. Lady’s concern and let them know that there is a strong likelihood that they will be asked about that issue in a week’s time.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on abortion term limits? Does the Leader of the House believe it is right that babies in this country are still being aborted because they have cleft palates or club feet?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but I have to be frank with him: the Government do not have plans to introduce legislation to reform the law on abortion. The issue was debated at some length in the previous Parliament. However, if he wants a debate on it, he may like to approach the Backbench Business Committee, because I appreciate that strong views are held on both sides of the argument.

Kevin Brennan: As the Leader of the House is having so much trouble filling parliamentary time, why has he not been able to allow the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise of having a debate and a vote on fox hunting? Might that be because the Leader of the House is not looking very hard for that time?

George Young: I suspect that if the first thing that the coalition Government had done was have a debate on fox hunting, the hon. Gentleman would have questioned our priorities. The Government have a legislative programme which is before the House, and we believe that is the appropriate priority for the House. There are three and a half years to go in this Parliament, and in due course that section of the coalition agreement will be honoured.

Andrew Bridgen: At Health questions this week, I asked about reports that advertisements for personal injury lawyers had started appearing in hospital accident and emergency departments. The Minister who answered rightly said that it was not appropriate for such material to appear in NHS hospitals. However, the Compensation Act 2006, introduced by the previous Labour Government, states that hospitals are authorised to deal with companies under agreement, so may we have an urgent debate about the unwelcome consequences of that Act, which I believe has added to the compensation culture in this country?

George Young: I am disturbed to hear that such advertisements are going up in hospitals in our country. As my hon. Friend says, unauthorised marketing by claims management companies is already prohibited without the approval of the management of the facility or the building, and that ban has forced a number of claims companies to modify how they advertise their services. To answer my hon. Friend’s specific question, a Command Paper on post-legislative scrutiny of the Act he mentions has been laid in Parliament today, and there is a related written ministerial statement, which he may like to look at.

Ian Lavery: Another dire statistic revealed this week that there are 210,000 households in the north-east in which no one is working. That, coupled with the highest unemployment, fuel poverty and child poverty rates in the country, does not bode well for the people of the north-east. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate to discuss the future for the people of the north-east and the north-east economy?

George Young: Of course the Government are concerned about the high level of unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the north-east in general. To put this in context, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects that between 2011 and 2017 total employment will increase by about 1 million, with a 1.7 million rise in private sector employment offsetting a total reduction in general government employment of about 710,000. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have introduced the Work programme, the UK’s biggest ever single employment support programme. We are also introducing universal credit, which will improve the incentives to get back into work, and there is extra funding on apprenticeships and other such activities. I hope that will help reduce unemployment in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Andrew Selous: Could we have a debate on value for money and effectiveness in local policing, so that other police forces can learn from the example of Bedfordshire police, which has just cut crime by 67%? We could learn about the police
	station exclusion policy of inspectors such as Frank Donnelly, who has made sure that officers are out catching criminals and not inside police stations.

George Young: I commend the work of Inspector Frank Donnelly, who has shown that, within the challenging financial settlement that police authorities have had to live with, it is possible to reduce crime by getting officers out of the station and on to the streets. I was delighted to hear of the reduction in crime in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I hope the example of Frank Donnelly will be copied elsewhere.

Chris Bryant: The business that the Leader of the House announced was pretty threadbare, and although I agree with him that we do not necessarily want to be a legislation factory, I have a solution for him. There are 101 private Members’ Bills waiting for time and only two days when they could possibly be debated before Prorogation, when they all lapse. Some of them are on really important things such as adoption, firearms, daylight saving, metal theft, the registration of lobbyists—that would solve the problem there. Why does the Leader of the House therefore not give up some of the days he is using on footling business and allocate them to private Members’ Bills, which lots of Members on the Government Back Benches would love? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

George Young: That is a very populist demand which I know finds a lot of support on the Back Benches. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that there are two Houses of Parliament and legislation has to pass through both. There is no point in stacking up more and more Bills in this House if the other House has not got the time to process them. He will know that the Welfare Reform Bill, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, the Health and Social Care Bill and the Scotland Bill are all awaiting consideration in another place, and they have to complete their passage through the House before the end of the Session. There is no merit at all in adding to the queue in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

Martin Vickers: Can the Leader of the House find time for a statement that could give an answer to the North Lincolnshire question? The question relates, of course, to the Scottish referendum and why a Scot working in North Lincolnshire for a few years will be denied a vote on the future of his country, whereas someone from North Lincolnshire working for a few years in Scotland will have the opportunity of a vote.

George Young: I suspect that the North Lincolnshire question could be posed for almost any part of the country. My hon. Friend will know that the provisional decision is to use the franchise for the Scottish Parliament as the basis for any referendum, but there will be adequate opportunities in the debate that was launched on Tuesday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss the broader issues surrounding the referendum. It would make sense for the House to reflect at some point on the announcement made on Tuesday, and that may provide an opportunity for my hon. Friend to pose his question; and—who knows?—he may get an answer to it at the end of that debate.

David Wright: Could we have a statement from a Health Minister about the introduction of the 111 service? There is real concern in Telford that the introduction of the 111 service might severely damage our excellent out-of-hours GP service, specifically consultations and out-of-hours cover.

George Young: There was an opportunity to ask Health Ministers questions on Tuesday, but I will draw my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary’s attention to the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the 111 scheme’s impact on services and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Karen Bradley: Over 80% of people in employment in my constituency are employed in the private sector, many of them in small businesses. Those businesses should be given the support they need to enable them to grow and to create more jobs, so that we can get more people working in the private sector. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that matter and the support the Government could give?

George Young: My hon. Friend is right—we do look to the small and medium-sized enterprises to be part of the dynamo for growth and reducing unemployment. She will know that we have doubled small business rate relief for two and a half years. Originally, we announced a doubling of that relief for one year, and that was extended in the 2011 Budget, and again in the autumn statement for a further six months from October 2012. There are also other initiatives, such as cutting red tape and the loan guarantee scheme. I hope that all those will be of assistance to SMEs. We all have a role to play in drawing to the attention of SMEs in our constituencies the various schemes the Government have made available to assist them.

Iain Wright: The Leader of the House mentioned rebalancing the economy. Data from the US suggest that its manufacturing sector is expanding strongly and unemployment is at a three-year low. By way of contrast, British manufacturing has suffered the sharpest fall in activity since 2009, unemployment here is at an 18-year high, and yesterday’s trade figures showed that exports to countries outside the EU have declined. Given that next month marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Dickens, can we have a debate on a tale of two economies, so that this House can debate with Dickensian eloquence why the US seems to be pulling out of the mess but Britain seems to be going ever further into it?

George Young: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the decline in the manufacturing industry did not begin in 2009; there had already been a fairly substantial reduction in employment in manufacturing. One of the things we are seeking to do is to rebalance the economy, and the intervention a few moments ago from my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) showed the success we are having in promoting, for example, car manufacturing. Also, other sectors of the economy have been doing better, such as pharmaceuticals. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: we want to emphasise growth. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be drawing up his Budget, and I hope it
	will be possible to take further measures to address what the hon. Gentleman calls the tale of two countries. However, the US has not been without its problems: I think I am right in saying that growth in the last quarter in this country was higher than in the US.

Matthew Offord: Can we have a debate on the Government’s energy policy in light of the Which? report stating that more than 4 million consumers were dissatisfied with their energy company, and in light of the Centre for Policy Studies report arguing that the introduction of the carbon floor price in 2013 will damage efforts to decarbonise the UK’s electricity supply?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. Some of the issues he raises are a matter for Ofgem, with which the Government are working, for example, to have greater transparency on tariffs and to make it easier for consumers to switch from one to another. We have taken some steps already—we plan more—to give Ofgem more teeth in its transactions with electricity suppliers. I hope my hon. Friend will welcome yesterday’s and today’s announcements by two major companies of tariff reductions, and that that will take some of the pressure off the consumers he referred to.

Dave Watts: Given that the Prime Minister guaranteed that rail fares would not increase by more than 1% above inflation, and that many are in fact increasing by up to 11%, can we have a statement or debate on the Government’s failure to control rail prices—and on the Prime Minister’s ability not to keep his promises?

George Young: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman was yesterday, but I think we had a debate on rail fares. We have already had half a day’s debate, and I remind him that in 2009, under the regime of the previous Government, rail fares were allowed to go up by 11%.

Nick de Bois: The Mary Portas review, which has been endorsed by the Government and the Opposition, highlighted the burden that parking charges place on our high streets. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on why Enfield’s Labour council has persisted with massive increases in parking charges, including the introduction of Sunday charges, against the wishes of shopkeepers and churchgoers and despite vociferous opposition from theEnfield Independent and The Enfield Advertiser?

George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend’s role as a champion of businesses in his constituency, particularly of the retail sector. He will know that I announced a debate next week on the Mary Portas review, chosen by the Backbench Business Committee. I hope that will be an opportunity for him to intervene at slightly greater length than he was able to today.

Gloria De Piero: Could we have a debate on hospital parking charges? The hospital in my constituency has introduced big rises and has recently started charging for disabled parking. Sadly, it is not alone in doing so.

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. That is primarily a matter for the trust that runs the hospital she referred to. Often, the income from car parking helps to sustain a higher level of service than would otherwise be the case. However, the Government have devolved this matter to local trusts, and I am sure she will want to pursue the issue with the chief executive of her local trust.

Kris Hopkins: The Leader of the House will doubtless be as alarmed as I am to read reports about the continued widening of the division between the civilian Government and the military in the nuclear-armed state of Pakistan. May we have an urgent statement from the Foreign Secretary outlining the potential implications for our country of that country’s continued instability?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. The Foreign Secretary will be at this Dispatch Box on Tuesday, when my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to question him. A strong, stable constitutional democracy is in Pakistan’s interests, but I take on board the point that my hon. Friend has just made.

Derek Twigg: May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent statement to clarify the Government’s plans for increasing the number of private patients in NHS foundation trust hospitals? On Tuesday, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) said that
	“we are not changing the situation”—[Official Report, 10 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 14.]
	but of course the Health and Social Care Bill removes the private patient cap and the Government’s impact assessment assumes the inclusion of
	“additional…overseas private patients… and patients who would have otherwise been treated on the NHS”,
	so how can that statement be true?

George Young: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Health and Social Care Bill is being considered in another place; we have just had the completion of 15 days in Committee and a number of days have been allocated for Report. I have no doubt that the specific issue he mentions will be raised during the remaining stages of that Bill, and if the Bill comes back, there will be an opportunity for him to raise the matter again in this House. In the meantime, I will draw his question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Damian Hinds: From this week, credit unions enjoy important new freedoms to help them develop and grow. May we have a debate on financial inclusion, affordable credit and the important role that credit unions play?

George Young: My hon. Friend’s suggestion is very timely in view of the reports over the Christmas holidays of the less scrupulous operators in that field, and he reminds the House of the role of credit unions. I cannot promise such a debate, but I know that Members on both sides of the House have expressed an interest in the subject, and the Backbench Business Committee may wish to add it to its list of requests.

Jenny Chapman: Darlington football club is 128 years old and, as the Leader of the House knows, it is the club that gave the world’s first black professional footballer, Arthur Wharton, his big break. Sadly, despite the best efforts of local businesses, The Northern Echo and the local council, the club is in administration and has days, if not hours, before liquidation. When can we have a debate on the support that is available to help historic clubs such as Darlington?

George Young: I am sorry to hear of the problems that confront the hon. Lady’s local football club. The statue of the footballer to whom she refers was made by a sculptor in my constituency, which is why I am aware of the case. I do not wish to raise her hopes, but I will draw her concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport to see whether there is any role for the Government to play in enabling the club to continue.

Andrew Murrison: May we have a debate on the likely effectiveness of the ban on sow stalls in the European Union from 1 January 2013, given that there is every indication that several countries will not be compliant? The UK rightly implemented the ban from 1999, but it has halved the sow herd. Clearly, more needs to be done in Europe to promote animal welfare and in Britain to ensure that our industry is protected.

George Young: This country has always set high standards in animal welfare. I understand my hon. Friend’s concern that some of our competitor countries may not be implementing the new measures as quickly as they should, and I can tell him that we will be taking action to drive compliance by the slower implementers. As he says, the EU has banned sow stalls, but farmers in other member states are not implementing the measures as fast as farmers in this country, and I will draw his concern to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Diana Johnson: Following the votes in the other place on the Welfare Reform Bill, may we have a debate in this House about the effect that the benefit changes will have on people who received contaminated blood products through treatment in the NHS and the fact that they will lose the very limited benefits that they are entitled to with the changes that the Government are introducing?

George Young: The Welfare Reform Bill will of course be returning to this House when it has completed its consideration in another place. Depending on any changes made to that Bill, hon. Members may have an opportunity to raise that matter. The hon. Lady attended a meeting with the relevant Minister, along with myself and others. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton) to refresh us both on the steps being taken as a result of that meeting, at which we met those who have suffered as a result of contaminated blood and believe that they are getting a raw deal.

Philip Hollobone: Given the difficulties that the Leader of the House has in filling parliamentary time, given that the Backbench Business Committee always arranges interesting, entertaining and
	well attended debates on topical issues that Members and the country want discussed, and given the large number of requests that he has referred to that Committee today, has he given any consideration to having a Backbench Business week, when all the business of that week can be determined by that Committee?

George Young: My hon. Friend puts forward an interesting proposition. What we have tried to do is step up the number of days that we have made available to the Backbench Business Committee; it has a debate later today and one next Tuesday, and I announced another debate for the following week. I am not quite sure that it would make sense to block out a whole week and allocate all of it to the Backbench Business Committee.

Tom Blenkinsop: Next Thursday, a by-election will be held in Redcar and Cleveland borough council’s Newcomen ward. The Liberal Democrat candidate has made openly Islamophobic statements on his Facebook site, yet he remains the candidate, despite Liberal Democrat “zero tolerance” to such instances of prejudice and discrimination. The Muslim Council of Britain is concerned about this, as are the Coexistence Trust and HOPE not hate. Does the Leader of the House believe there is any place in a mainstream democratic political party, especially one that is in government, for someone, such as Newcomen’s Lib Dem candidate, who holds such clearly expressed Islamophobic views?

George Young: I am reluctant to get drawn into a by-election spat. If any criminal offence has been committed, it would be appropriate to refer it to the police. My only comment is that if a Conservative candidate is standing, I hope that everyone will support him or her.

Christopher Pincher: There has been a great deal of debate recently about public sector pensions, but may we have a debate about the state pension, so that we can discuss the actions that the Government are taking to improve the lot of state pensioners and ensure that they never again suffer the indignity of the miserly 75p rise they got from Labour?

George Young: We would welcome such a debate. This year, pensioners will see the biggest cash rise they have ever seen, and under our triple lock the state pension will always be increased, year on year, in line with average earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. This year’s increase of more than £5 a week contrasts, as my hon. Friend has just reminded us, with the 75p that the Labour Government gave pensioners in 1999.

Ian Austin: The west midlands was hit hardest during the downturn and is taking longest to recover, so it beggars belief that £185 million of European regional development fund money—designed to boost the economy, attract investment and create employment—that has been earmarked for the west midlands is lying idle, along with £1.1 billion nationally. Will the Leader of the House get the Minister responsible for this shambles to come to the House of Commons to explain to us why this money is not being spent in the regions where it is needed?

George Young: I assume that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. If that is the case, I will draw the matter to his attention and see whether there is a role to play in making sure that any funds that could be used for investment in the west midlands are unlocked.

Glyn Davies: Two of the greatest challenges facing us are energy costs, both to households and to business, and the need to reduce the impact of climate change. May we have an early debate about the progress being made towards the introduction of the green deal?

George Young: I cannot promise an early debate on the introduction of the green deal. I believe that just before Christmas my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change made a statement to give us an update on the progress that we were making towards our targets. I imagine that such statements will be repeated at 12 month intervals. My hon. Friend might wish to approach the Backbench Business Committee to see whether it can find time for such a debate, so that we can outline the progress we are making on tackling climate change.

Harriett Baldwin: As we rebalance the economy towards business growth and entrepreneurship, may we have a debate on employer-supported child care vouchers, because at the moment the only people who cannot access such support are the self-employed?

George Young: The vouchers are of great help; they help nearly 500,000 people balance their commitments to their family with their work. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be considering his Budget and I will pass on my hon. Friend’s suggestion that the scheme should be extended to include the self-employed.

Chris White: Earlier this week, I was fortunate enough to meet young people in my constituency at our local youth forum. Their engagement in and passion about improving our community were excellent to see and showed their great potential to make a difference. Will the Leader of the House give Government time for a debate on how to get more young people involved in politics and make our institutions as relevant to them as possible?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend for what he has done. It is up to every Member of Parliament to engage with young people in their constituencies and to encourage them to take part in the political process in the way he has suggested. I was encouraged, as I know were you, Mr Speaker, and the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), by the quality of the debate when the Youth Parliament met here a few weeks ago and by the representatives' commitment to the political process. I hope that some of them will in due course sit on these green Benches.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. There is extreme pressure on time, as I mentioned earlier, and the level of interest in the first of the two Backbench Business Committee
	debates has necessitated the imposition of a very tight time limit. I am happy to take remaining colleagues on the explicit condition that we have single-sentence questions, led by Mr Julian Smith.

Julian Smith: May we have a debate to support Ofcom’s excellent decision this morning to extend the coverage obligations on the spectrum auction for 4G from 95% to 98%, which will make a massive difference to rural areas in Britain?

George Young: I would like to promise such a debate, but I would be misleading my hon. Friend if I said yes. I hope that he will go along at 1 o’clock on Tuesday to the salon chaired by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and put in a bid for a debate on this important issue.

Henry Smith: Towards the end of last year, I was pleased to be able to help launch the Royal College of Midwives’ “State of Maternity Services” report. There has been an increase in the number of midwives, but there has also an increase in the number of births, so I would therefore be grateful if consideration could be given to holding a debate on the future of maternity services.

George Young: That delivery took a little longer than Mr Speaker implied. My hon. Friend is a patron of the Royal College of Midwives and I commend him on his interest. The Government are committed to high-quality perinatal and antenatal care: hundreds more midwives are in service now than in 2010 and a record number are in training. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by that basic information.

Andrew Stephenson: Many businesses in Pendle have welcomed the reduction in the rate of corporation tax, but many are still struggling with an overtly complex tax system. May we therefore have a debate on tax simplification?

George Young: I very much hope that the Chancellor will take on board what my hon. Friend has said. We are consulting on integrating the operation of income tax and national insurance contributions, but I am sure that that would be a step in the right direction.

Stephen Metcalfe: For many years, my constituents in south Essex have suffered intolerable delays at the Dartford crossing. My hon. Friend the roads Minister has an innovative
	solution; it requires legislation, however, so, will the Leader of the House tell me and my constituents when that legislation will be brought forward?

Hon. Members: Four sentences!

Stephen Metcalfe: They were commas.

George Young: We have just had Transport questions, when my hon. Friend might have had an opportunity to raise that matter. It would be up to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to propose such a piece of legislation and it would have to take its place in what, I have to tell my hon. Friend, is a rather long queue.

Mr Speaker: Colleagues have quirky ideas about commas and semi-colons; that is immediately apparent.

Sarah Newton: Men, too, are victims of domestic violence, so may we have a debate about the Government’s recent announcement of new money that is available to help voluntary sector organisations that provide vital support to those victims?

George Young: I commend my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that not just women are victims of domestic violence. I cannot promise such a debate, but I refer her to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire and the Backbench Business Committee.

Bob Blackman: Harrow clinical commissioning group has been informed by NHS London that it is not economically viable as a unit under the Government’s reforms, and that it must be replaced and join Brent, Harrow, Ealing, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Hammersmith and Fulham. May we have a debate on the implementation of the Government’s NHS reforms?

George Young: The Government are encouraging group practices to band together to form clinical commissioning groups, but there is no central direction about how they should be configured. In the first instance, I suggest that my hon. Friend contacts NHS North West London and shares his concern to see whether there could be a better configuration of local practices that perhaps covered a slightly smaller area than the one that is envisaged.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	[Un-allotted Day]
	 — 
	Pub Companies

[Relevant documents: The  Second Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 2004-05, Pub Companies, HC 128;  the  Fourth Special Report from the Trade and Industry Committee, Session 2004-05, Pub Companies: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report on Pub Companies, HC 434;  the  Seventh Report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, Session 2008-09, Pub Companies, HC 26;  the  Third Special Report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, Session 2008-09, Pub Companies, HC 798;  the  Fifth Report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Session 2009-10, Pub Companies: follow-up, HC 138;  the  Eighth Report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Session 2009-10, Pub Companies: follow-up: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report, HC 503;  the  Tenth Report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Pub Companies, HC 1369, and the Government response, Cm 8222; and Oral evidence taken before the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee on 6 December 2011, HC 1690-i. ]

Adrian Bailey: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ proposals for reform of the pub industry fall short of the undertaking given to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in July 2010 and that only a statutory code of practice which includes a free-of-tie option with an open market rent review and an independent adjudicator will resolve the contractual problems between the pub companies and their lessees; and calls on the Government to commission a review of self-regulation of the pub industry in the Autumn of 2012 to be conducted by an independent body approved by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to allocate time for this very important debate. It might not be immediately obvious, but the motion addresses issues that are vital to some of the poorest people in our community—publicans, many of whom work very long hours and earn less than £15,000 a year. It is hardly surprising that many of them just give up and go elsewhere, and the consequences are visible up and down the country as pubs close day after day. The consequences hit not just publicans but the local communities they serve. Increasingly, rural villages are without a village pub and without the social hub and activity concentrated in that pub. That adds to the sense of alienation.
	Even in my local area, where 10 years ago there were four pubs within a mile, only one is left. I know that experience is shared by Members up and down the country. There is obviously something profoundly wrong in the industry. Some of it is about social changes, but, to go to the heart of the problem, a huge volume of evidence now shows that the business model governing the relationship between pub licensees and the pub companies that own the pubs is crucial. The code of practice that governs the relationship between them is
	heavily weighted in favour of the pub company. I and others will be addressing some of the issues that arise from that.

James Gray: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman clarified one small point that is missing from the motion: namely, that he is referring to large pub companies that own large numbers of pubs and that family-owned brewing companies that own fewer than 500 pubs, such as Wadworth and Arkells in my constituency, are specifically excluded from the statutory regulation for which he is calling.

Adrian Bailey: Yes. Let me make it clear that I am basically speaking about the Select Committee reports, which were about pub companies, but I recognise that there is an issue with breweries and their tenancies that in some cases might be relevant to this discussion. I know that individual Members will draw the necessary distinctions in the debate and I hope to allay any fears they might have.

Kevin Brennan: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Adrian Bailey: I shall take one more intervention.

Kevin Brennan: Towards the latter end of the previous Parliament, when I, as a Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) did a lot of work on this subject, there seemed to be a great deal of consensus between the then Select Committee and the then Opposition parties that such a measure was necessary. Is my hon. Friend surprised that we have reached a stage in this Parliament where we have to debate this matter because action has not been taken?

Adrian Bailey: The answer is that I am absolutely astonished and I shall address that point.

Andrew Murrison: rose —

Adrian Bailey: I need to make a little progress, as I am conscious that many people want to speak. If I have time, I shall take further interventions.
	For the reasons I have outlined, the BIS Committee and its predecessor have held no fewer than four inquiries into the issues surrounding the trade. The previous report in 2010 under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) gave the industry a year to get its house in order or have statutory legislation. That was agreed by the Labour Minister in 2010. Subsequently, after the general election, when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was asked whether he would uphold the previous Government’s position, he confirmed he would.
	The current BIS Committee held an inquiry in 2011 and came to the unanimous conclusion that pub companies had not met the requirements of the previous Committee’s recommendations and that a statutory code with an independent adjudicator should be introduced. It also recommended that any code should have within it the option for a publican either to be tied to the pub company or to be free of such a tie and instead pay a
	rent to the pub company, which would be determined by a general open market review by a suitably qualified assessor.
	The Government’s response to the Committee’s recommendations has been totally inadequate. The Minister’s pledge fails to meet the aspirations of virtually all sections of the industry apart from those of the pub companies and reneges on the pledge given previously by a Minister. In the time available, I cannot deal with every point of variance between the recommendations of the Government and those of the Committee, but I know that many of the issues will be teased out in subsequent speeches.

Greg Mulholland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adrian Bailey: I will take this intervention because I know the hon. Gentleman has been heavily involved in this issue.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I pay tribute to his work and that of the Committee. He mentions the clear commitments given by Ministers. Is he aware of the e-mail from the office of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) to Justice for Licensees on 13 April 2010, saying:
	“The Conservative Party support the idea that should the industry fail to deliver self-regulation by June 2011, the Government . . . should end up consulting on putting the Code of Practice on a statutory basis”?

Adrian Bailey: No, I was not aware of that e-mail, but I am sure it will illuminate subsequent discussions.
	I cannot deal with every issue that has arisen, but it is possible to summarise some of the key issues, the first of which is the statutory code of conduct and an adjudicator. Instead of doing as the Select Committee recommended and introducing a statutory code, determined after consultation with all sections of the industry, the Government have said they will make the existing codes between pub companies and their licensees legally binding. That might sound like a very subtle distinction, but most pub companies believe that their existing contracts with their licensees are legally binding anyway. This approach simply legalises and regularises a situation that is the source of the problem in the first place, and makes very little change.
	The second key issue concerns the legal advice that the Government seem to have obtained in reaching their conclusion on the best way forward. On pressing this issue, it became clear to the Committee that the legal advice taken by Government was actually that given to the British Beer and Pub Association—the trade association of the pub companies. They do not seem to have taken any independent legal advice whatever.

Ann McKechin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Adrian Bailey: I will, but I am conscious of the fact that many others want to speak.

Ann McKechin: My hon. Friend is very generous in allowing me to intervene. Does he share my concern that the key difference between a statutory code and a
	self-regulated one is that under a self-regulated code if a pub should be sold by the landlord to another company that was not a member of the said trade association, the tenant would have no rights, as currently provided under the code, whereas under a statutory code they would have rights?

Adrian Bailey: Yes, this is a very important distinction and I know that the issue exercises representatives of the licensees.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adrian Bailey: I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and then I must press on.

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. How does he believe the motion might be improved or amended to dispel the concerns expressed by family brewers of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) that they would be affected by a statutory code when that is not the case?

Adrian Bailey: I am not amending the motion, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the Select Committee’s consideration of any panel to assess the workings of the voluntary code the Committee would make the panel well aware of this issue.
	The third issue is the weakness of the framework code. It is fair to say that the Government acknowledge that the existing framework code is weak, even though they are making it legally binding, but to date all the proposals for strengthening it seem to have come—surprise, surprise—from the British Beer and Pub Association. I cannot think of anything more likely to destroy confidence within the wider industry and among publicans than a code that has been supposedly strengthened on the advice of the BBPA.

John Healey: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him and the Committee on the report. Does he think that the code will help Mr Wild, who runs a very popular pub in Rotherham, whose business is being throttled by the terms of his tenancy? He tried to arrange with Enterprise Inns to buy his cask ales free of tie. He was told it would be £10,000 to £15,000 negotiable but was then told, three days later, it would be £20,000 non-negotiable. He asked for that to be put in writing but was refused. He was then told that the agreement would be for each one of his cask ales, not all five, and that it would be not a one-off payment but an annual payment.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. A lot of Members want to get in, so we need shorter interventions.

Adrian Bailey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The short answer is that the motion is designed to provide a way forward that will end that sort of abuse. Like other Members up and down the country, I am sure, I have several equally unjust examples.
	A fourth and crucial problem is the concern within the wider industry that the proposals do not reflect the interests of all relevant sectors. Given that there is
	effectively a dispute between the pub companies and the licensees, it would be reasonable for all their interests to be considered equally, but this does not seem to have happened. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for the work he has done, through freedom of information requests, which has clearly highlighted that the Government always intended to have a voluntary code, rather than a statutory one, and above all that in their response to the Committee they have reproduced almost word for word sections of submissions made by the British Beer and Pub Association. That completely undermines the confidence that the wider industry had in the Government’s impartiality and commitment to finding an even-handed solution. That is one of my motives for wanting to put what I hope will be a fail-safe device in the motion to gain some sort of purchase on the process.
	The fifth issue that I want to address is the Government’s refusal to accept the BIS Committee’s recommendations regarding the free-of-tie option with open market rent review, which I have mentioned. The Select Committee’s position is not that there should be one option or other, but we do say consistently in all our reports that that option should be available for new and existing publicans so that they can, on the best professional advice, make a decision about what most clearly meets the needs in their business plan. Unfortunately, that is not included in the Government reply.
	It is fair to ask why the motion does not call for immediate statutory legislation. The original recommendations of the Select Committee were predicated on the assumption that any such statutory intervention would arise from genuine and inclusive consultation, but the overwhelming evidence—I again thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West for the information he has obtained through FOI requests—is that the process is being driven by the BBPA. It is for that reason that I included in the motion a requirement that an independent panel be set up, with membership approved by the Select Committee, to ensure that any assessment of the processes that the Government undertake to deliver their proposals is monitored, and that recommendations can subsequently be made.
	It is important for Parliament not only to state clearly today the need in principle for a statutory code, but to retain control of the process to ensure that the code genuinely reflects the interests of all sides of the industry. That is why I changed the motion in that respect.

Richard Fuller: My point is about the timing of the review. A reasonable person looking at the motion would see that it mentions changes that are currently being implemented, but the hon. Gentleman is now calling for a review just a few months after they have been put in place. Will he explain the reason behind holding a review so soon after the changes?

Adrian Bailey: The reason is that the Government started to implement their proposals for changes in the industry a month before Christmas, so it is reasonable to assume that by autumn 2012 we shall have some idea of how they are working. By setting up an independent panel of professionally qualified and suitably experienced people to assess the changes, we will be able to make a judgment about pursuing further statutory intervention.

Andrew Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Adrian Bailey: No, I am sorry. I am coming to a conclusion and other people want to speak.
	Concerns are reflected in a submission from the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, which comments on the Government’s existing proposals:
	“We have seen no action plan or agreed procedure to ensure open consultation in accordance with Government standards of best practice. There are also no agreed criteria or timetable against which progress may be judged or successful outcomes determined. Finally, there is no process for ongoing monitoring of Government to ensure that these commitments are delivered or sanctions available if they are not.”
	The proposals for an independent panel are designed to deal with that concern in the industry. My real fear is that if we pursue a statutory code without a mechanism for ensuring that it is based on the interests of all sectors of the industry, we could end up with the worst of all worlds—a statutory code based only on the interests of the BBPA.
	The motion is not about more regulation; it is about liberating licensees, not regulating them. They are already heavily regulated in their contractual relationships with the pubcos. Our proposals for a statutory code would enable them to be free of some of those regulations. A properly constructed code of practice would provide a basis for some of our most entrepreneurial small business men to free up their talents and demonstrate how well they can serve the community.
	I remind everybody in the Chamber that thousands of publicans up and down the country will be listening to and watching our debate, because they know that its outcome could be vital in determining their future. At the moment, they feel overwhelmingly let down. It is up to Parliament to pass the motion and to demonstrate today that we are on their side and that we will not rest until they get a fair deal.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment and that we have a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Brian Binley: I thank my friend and colleague the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee for his contribution. It has been an honour to serve as vice-Chairman under his guidance and I welcome the debate.
	Mr Deputy Speaker, as you in particular will know, since 2004 there have been four Committee inquiries on this subject; I have had the pleasure of participating in two of them. Progress has been made, but many assurances have been given about the voluntary code that have not been upheld and that is not good enough.
	The background is relatively simple. The nature of public houses and the associated brewing industry has changed much in the last 30 years. I recall a Monopolies Commission investigation as long ago as 1972, as a result of which breweries were increasingly made to question the value of maintaining their estate. In consequence much of the estate was sold, initially to entrepreneurs, but they were progressively usurped by
	the big players who developed massive estates of pub chains. They borrowed much to create those estates and therein lies the problem.

Bob Stewart: Is my hon. Friend talking about pub companies that own pubs, rather than breweries that have a pub estate? Is that the thrust of his argument?

Brian Binley: That is absolutely correct. I am talking about pubcos and I exclude family businesses that own fewer than 500 pubs. The big owners of pubs and their unsustainable financial structures are the real problem. Let me make it clear: this is not about family-owned brewery companies, who do a very good job indeed. I am talking about big pub companies whose model is unsustainable; it is based on excessive debt, misleading information and deception, as the inquiry has proved.

Karen Bradley: Will my hon. Friend clarify this point? Is it correct that large pub companies borrowed against future rental income, so they are dependent on that to sustain their high levels of debt?

Brian Binley: They borrowed against the value of the properties, and rental income is very relevant. That is absolutely correct. Therein lies the unsustainability of the model, when we bear in mind that the breweries built up their estate over a 200-year period.
	Sadly, tenants are the victims of that unsustainable structure. In many cases they face prices higher than those on the open market, exorbitant rents and a quart-measure of misleading information. To make a pub work, individuals have ploughed in their savings on the back of distorted information, and as a consequence they have gone to the wall. Most publicans are dedicated and hard-working people. We should take note: they are influential opinion formers in our communities and many of them have been badly treated. All I seek is fairness on their behalf.
	Following the Committee’s 2010 inquiry, there was a clear understanding that the industry would have a year to get its house in order, or a statutory code of practice would be introduced. I questioned the previous Government and received that assurance. I questioned the current Secretary of State, who confirmed that he would continue with that promise, but the Government have sadly reneged on that undertaking. I find that very sad indeed.
	The Government’s proposals for a legally binding voluntary code are not good enough. They have performed a volte face on this issue and it is incumbent on them to explain why their proposals are superior. How will a voluntary code work? The Minister’s argument seems to be that the level of protection will be comparable to that provided by a statutory code, but why is a voluntary code preferred when it has failed in the past? If the answer lies within the industry, why has it taken so long to make such desultory progress? Why should this Minister have any more faith in the industry than his predecessors, who had similar confidence? What is the cost of the voluntary code? How does it compare with the certainties that statutory regulation would bring? How much will it cost tenants, when they are in trouble, to pursue an action under the voluntary code? Those answers I demand
	from the Minister today. Concerns about the future of the industry abound. Why should small tenants be made to pay the price? They have suffered enough. Were they not persuaded to take on these pubs under false pretences, under an unsustainable structure? Does not all the Committee’s evidence prove that to be true?
	I want the Government to support the entire industry, including the tenants. That means that in companies with more than 500 pubs—that excludes the small businesses—tied tenants should have the option to become free of the tie.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the current relationship between many tied pub tenants and large pub chain owners is almost feudal, and is neither fair nor sustainable?

Brian Binley: I agree, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
	We need an opportunity for an independent, open rent review within the terms of the tenancy. Those who choose to stay tied need to have the option of selling a guest beer. We need to give tenants more freedom to decide the style and structure of their business. Those things are not available within the pubcos at present. Those are fairly simple requests. I do not believe that they can be achieved without an independent ombudsman to monitor compliance—history and practice are on this side of the argument.
	I do not know why the Government have sought to back away from their own commitments. I recognise the need to compromise in the way that the Chairman of the Select Committee has explained, but if we want, as I do, a virile and vibrant pub industry that is strong for the future, we need to deal with the cancer that is undermining it and putting its very existence under threat. That, Mr Minister, means that we need to change the proposals that have already been made. I expect the explanations I have asked for, and I expect the Minister to be compliant and say that changes will be made—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Ian Lucas.

Ian Lucas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), whose eloquence I aspire to and whose passion I can only dream about. I know that he has much experience of the detail of this issue from the Select Committee. One aspect of it in particular has concerned me for many years.
	Before I came to the House, I was a high street solicitor, although I try to keep that quiet most of the time. One thing that I found most surprising when I began to work on commercial leases, particularly in the licensing sector, was the existence of this curious anomaly called the beer tie, which seems to create an anti-competitive situation in the brewing industry that does not appear to be allowed in any other industry.

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman talks about the anti-competitive nature of the beer tie. Does he accept that a number of Government reports and one by the Office of Fair Trading have said that it is not anti-competitive at all?

Ian Lucas: I shall come on to that, and I reject that decision entirely. I accept that the OFT has investigated the matter on a number of occasions. Like many Members of the House and publicans in my constituency and across the country, I have for many years been completely mystified by the inactivity of the OFT and by the conclusions it has reached. We all know that pubs in our constituencies are in crisis and that the beer tie is part of the problem.

Greg Mulholland: rose—

Ian Lucas: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has done so much tremendous work in this area.

Greg Mulholland: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the OFT said clearly that the imbalance in the relationship between tenants and pub companies was not within its remit. It did not even comment on the substantive issue that we are debating today, so its report is not relevant.

Ian Lucas: Absolutely. The inequality in the bargaining power of pub companies and publicans is a central issue. We see that month after month in our constituencies. It is part of the crisis that is happening in town centres and high streets across the country. We must view the debate in the context of the important challenges that we all face, no matter what type of constituency we have.
	I looked at this issue in detail before the last general election, when I surveyed publicans throughout my constituency on how their business could be improved. They were vociferous in responding, and one of the overriding themes was the existence of the beer tie. I am therefore astonished that the Government’s response to the Select Committee states that
	“the Government therefore considers the debate over ‘tied’ or ‘free-of-tie’ to be largely a distraction. There is nothing in itself that causes the tie to be fundamentally wrong—and, in fact, in some instances, the tied model may be essential to the preservation of small British brewers and local beer—and, with them, British businesses and jobs.”
	We have already touched on the position of small brewers. The inequality in the bargaining power of large pub companies and the publicans on our high streets is a central issue.
	I was a Minister for regulatory reform before the last general election, and my view is that regulation should be a last resort. As far as I am concerned, this is the last resort, and this case desperately calls for regulation because we have to balance out the unequal bargaining power that is removing real choice from consumers on our high streets. When consumers go to their local pubs they are prevented from purchasing beers that they want because of the existence of the beer tie.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad that my hon. Friend is talking about consumers. One of my concerns is that the number of pubs in my constituency has declined since 2005 from 52 to 33, which is not untypical. There is less choice for consumers, partly as a result of this issue.

Ian Lucas: That is absolutely right. We know that CAMRA, which has done superb work in this area over many years, takes the view that
	“the ‘beer tie’ as operated by the large pub companies is a key driving factor behind the decline of the pub trade.”
	These concerns have been recognised over the years by various Select Committee reports. We all know that it is a very complex and difficult matter of long standing and that it is of grave concern to our constituents.
	CAMRA goes on to say that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey),
	“both gave clear Government commitments that if the pub companies failed to meet a deadline for self regulation by June 2011 then they would act to require meaningful reform. These commitments have been broken.”
	That is a very serious allegation, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary will want to respond to that in due course.
	The commitments were given in the context of the build-up to the last general election. This was a major issue in campaigns in all parts of the House. When the election came there was a broad consensus about what action needed to be taken. It is unfortunate that the parties in government have not carried that consensus through to the implementation of policies that are broadly based and command respect throughout the House.
	We know that there is a crisis on the high street and that pubs on those high streets play an extremely important part in a functioning and vibrant local community. The Government have the power to make a real impact on high streets by dealing with this issue, and they must do so simply by fulfilling the commitments they gave before the general election and that Ministers have made since. They need to respect publicans, the pub trade and our high streets and follow through on those commitments.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Time is very tight, so perhaps Members could ease back on interventions. Those Members who wish to catch my eye, if they have already intervened, will have to go lower down the list, because otherwise it is unfair on those waiting to speak. If Members can try to make the most of this and shorten their speeches, the better it will be.

Greg Mulholland: I echo my earlier comments commending the Select Committee on its excellent work. The all-party save the pub group has been delighted to work with the Committee and support its work. I am disappointed that we have to have this debate. As has already been made clear, in the past 18 months we received unanimous, cast-iron commitments from Front-Bench spokesmen of all three main parties that, if self-regulation failed by June 2011, a statutory code of practice would be introduced, including the all-important genuine free-of-tie option.
	If people ask why this should be reviewed in the autumn, the simple answer is that it has been going on for seven years and generated four Select Committee reports. The last attempt at self-regulation was supposed to be the final one, which makes the Government’s response even more baffling. The sad reality is that their response simply does not deal with the fundamental issue, which is that the big pub companies take too much from each pub and it makes it difficult or impossible
	for those licensees to make a living, and that also shuts pubs. The Government’s response does nothing whatsoever to address that.
	I am afraid that the Government have also been sold a pup. The immediate improvements outlined in their response are illusory. First, there are no substantive changes in the new framework code of practice produced by the British Beer and Pub Association. Secondly, and even more worryingly, the whole idea of putting the new codes on a legal footing is a mirage. The BBPA’s own legal advice—let us all be clear that it is the representative organisation of the pub companies—based on a legal authority that goes back 100 years, the Carlill case, has made it clear that, if we are to rely on that case, those codes are already binding. A letter was sent to pubco lessees over Christmas that worried them considerably. It suggested that the 2010 company code of practice would become binding if they sought to use it in any case, which is clearly an offer to ensnare them in further obligations to their landlords not already covered in the lease.
	The first question to the Minister is this: how on earth can anyone be seeking to put on a legal footing codes that he himself has said are inadequate? He has written to the Select Committee Chair, stating:
	“In some case, primarily where the letter was sent in advance of the new code being agreed, the link to the industry Framework Code led to the former version rather than the enhanced version, of the code; however, this will be superseded by the new version of the code once it has been agreed.”
	The simple problem is this: which code and which offer? There are so many codes floating around, it is an absolute mess. The Minister needs to know that many licensee organisations believe that the Government, accepting the advice of the BBPA that it is a good idea to make the codes legally binding, will actually make the situation worse for licensees, not better.

Edward Davey: For the sake of clarity, it is the industry framework code that will be legally binding, and it is the strengthened industry code as agreed with the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations and the BBPA on 22 December last year.

Greg Mulholland: Not only was that code opposed by all the other organisations, but it was the old company codes that were mentioned in the letter, and the Minister has not adequately addressed that point.

Kevin Brennan: Is the hon. Gentleman surprised at what has happened, given that before the general election we worked closely together, he as a Back Bencher and I as a Minister, as did the Select Committee and the Front Benches, to come to an agreed position? Does he have any explanation for why the Government have taken this stance?

Greg Mulholland: Sadly, I am afraid that the explanation appears to be clear from the freedom of information request submitted by the save the pub group: the so-called Government response is basically the BBPA’s own report, with some passages and commitments taken word for word—indeed, there is even a typo in the BBPA report presented to Ministers that was directly cut and pasted into the Government’s response. I am afraid that the
	evidence is damning, which is why many organisations are saying that the Government should halt their entire proposal for reform in its tracks.

Edward Davey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Greg Mulholland: I apologise to the Minister, but I have given way twice. He will have plenty of time to respond.
	This is clearly not an industry solution. I am afraid that the Minister has been misled by the BBPA, because its report, which was copied into the Government’s response, clearly stated that the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers and the Guild of Master Victuallers had agreed to be part of the pub independent conciliation advisory service. However, the chairman of GMV has stated:
	“We as an organisation have neither agreed to, or been presented with, any proposal in respect of our participation in PICAS at this time.”
	The Minister needs to ask why he has been misled by the BBPA and then answer to the House.
	Let us be clear that the Government’s proposals for reform are not industry proposals. They are not supported by the Independent Pub Confederation, the GMV, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the ALMR, CAMRA, Fair Pint, Justice for Licensees, Licensees Unite or the all-party save the pub group. Why on earth did the Minister suggest throughout the Government response that it is an industry proposal? It is not even the Government’s response, but the response of the pubcos trying to avoid the self-regulation that he agreed was necessary.
	The Prime Minister rightly talks about dealing with crony capitalism, and I absolutely agree with him on that. In 2010, after shares in Enterprise Inns collapsed—they fell from 770p in 2007 to 26p in January this year, a decline in value of 96.6%—Mr Ted Tuppen awarded himself a 50% pay rise of £412,000, taking home £1.22 million, including a bonus of £558,000. At the same time he was closing pubs and making things impossible for tenants. I am sorry to say that the Government’s response has backed the pub companies and crony capitalism in the worst sense.
	We now need the statutory code of practice, including the genuine free-of-tie option. That was promised by the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister before the election. We have waited long enough. We will wait until the autumn, but no longer.

Fiona O'Donnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on securing today’s debate. It is about so much more than a fair deal for publicans; it is about the vital role pubs play in so many of our communities, particularly rural communities. In the village where I live in East Lothian, the pub is one of the few remaining facilities. It is where local community groups and organisations meet and where a newcomer like me goes to get to know the locals and find out what is going on in the community. Pubs are also vital employers in rural communities, but that is being hit hard by the Government’s failed economic plan. The flexible working and shift patterns often fit well for women and provide them with vital employment opportunities.
	We need to give publicans a fair chance to make a decent living, and as a new Member I have been amazed at the scale of the problem and at the number of publicans who have come to me to seek help. I am regularly copied into correspondence that extends to dozens of e-mails between them and the pub companies, and I cannot begin to imagine the stress that the situation causes publicans as they try to negotiate a fair deal. In that process, they often manage to negotiate a fair deal in one area, but then the pub company raises costs or reduces income in another. It really is time for the Government to do something about the situation.

Glyn Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fiona O'Donnell: I am afraid that I will not, because I am aware that many Members want to contribute.
	Indeed, in my constituency one publican, Mr Laurence Brunton, contacted me when he heard the Government’s response to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report, and said that the
	“government’s lame response to BIS committee recommendation makes a laughing stock of a hard working publican who is earning £10k a year.”
	Has the Minister had any conversations with the Chancellor about how much the taxpayer is having to pay out in tax credits to subsidise the way in which many of our publicans are being ripped off?
	The problems that I hear from publicans in East Lothian are about pubco-packaged beer prices, as well as those for alcopops and soft drinks, being almost 100% more expensive than the wholesale price. They describe rent negotiations as totally one-sided, and they feel like they are being bullied. The correspondence that I have seen certainly seems to back that up. Pubcos are often slow to carry out repairs or they do not carry them out at all, and that affects a publican’s ability to generate income and to achieve the targets that the companies set them. Many publicans survive only because of their family’s help, often paying the minimum wage to family members in order to keep the business running.
	The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) described the Prime Minister as talking about a fair system of capitalism, but actually the Leader of the Opposition has been leading that debate. It is good to see the Government catching up, if a little belatedly, but this is an opportunity for them to take some action to redress the imbalance in the pub industry.
	I should like also to make some positive suggestions to the Minister and, indeed, to invite him to my constituency to see some different pub models that are fairer and give something back to the community.
	Does he have any plans to encourage mutual pub models? The Prestoungrange Gothenburg pub in Prestonpans is an example of a pub giving back to the local community. It has recently won prizes and awards from the Campaign for Real Ale, as the best new enterprise in East Lothian, and, just last year, as Forth Radio’s pub of the year. Its website describes just what the Prestoungrange Gothenburg does. It is
	“under the management of the East of Scotland Public House Company Limited which trades wholly within the original Gothenburg Principles its founders established. After a 5% pa cumulative return on the capital employed in the enterprise, all further
	surpluses are Gift Aid granted to the Prestoungrange Arts Festival which is a charity devoting all its resources to using the arts to stimulate and encourage the economy of Prestonpans and its vicinity.”
	I should like the Minister to come—I will even buy him a pint if he does—to Prestonpans. I hope to welcome him there soon.

Andrew Griffiths: I pay tribute to the work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which has been diligent and dogged in taking this issue forward and looking at the pressures and problems that publicans and pub owners face throughout the country. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, as it demonstrates the real commitment on both sides of the House to ensuring that the Government do something to support pubs and brewers and get our pub industry back on its feet.
	It is a pleasure to follow, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who has immersed himself in pubs more, and has more experience of pubs, than any other Member. I have no doubt that everybody taking part in today’s debate has read the Science and Technology Committee’s report and abstained for at least two days this week in order to contribute this afternoon.
	I should also declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party beer group, and because in my constituency I have Punch Taverns, Spirit Group and Marston’s, a family brewer that also owns pubs.
	I think we all agree on the need to clean up the pub companies’ act and the way in which tenants are treated. None of us disagrees on that, and we all want to see healthy and vibrant brewing and pub industries. I do not defend the actions of some pub companies, as uncovered by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, but although the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) said earlier that he was concerned that pubs are over-regulated, his solution was to increase the regulation on pubs.

Adrian Bailey: I did not say that pubs were over-regulated; I said that they were highly regulated by pub companies, and that a statutory code would release pubs from some of that regulation.

Andrew Griffiths: I think we both agree that pubs are highly regulated, but I assert that introducing a statutory code would increase regulation. We want to allow anybody taking on a pub to have access to information, we want transparency, and we want them to understand what they are taking on when they take on their pub.

Dan Rogerson: It is absolutely right to point out those in the pub sector and brewing industry who are doing all they can to create a thriving industry and to secure jobs, but we need the backstop of regulation. It should not be brought to bear daily in every pub throughout the country, but I believe that if we have a review in the autumn, it will prove that the threat of such regulation is necessary to ensure that the worst practices in the industry are ruled out.

Andrew Griffiths: I agree that we may well wish to consider a review in future, but as for the idea that we should bring in new regulation and new requirements
	and then, within just a few months, review them again, I worry that companies will be concerned more about the review than about implementing the changes themselves.

Brian Binley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Andrew Griffiths: I have given way twice already, so I shall continue, if I may.
	We have to be careful what we wish for. More mature Members will be fully aware of the beer orders—well-intentioned regulation to improve the lot of publicans and pubs throughout the country, which, I argue, got us into this situation in the first place. We have to be careful before we reach for the lever of regulation, because once it is imposed, the costs, burdens and unintended consequences are there for everyone to see.
	We all recognise that pubcos are drinking at the last chance saloon, but today I heard the accusations made against the BBPA and I am, quite frankly, staggered. Hon. Members have mentioned several small family brewers, but all are members of the BBPA. It is not some sinister organisation, and although it is made up of pubcos, it also includes family brewers from up and down the country, so the idea that it has some sinister hand on the Minister’s shoulder and is influencing him in an underhand way is blatant nonsense, as is the idea that the Minister should develop policies for the brewing and pub industry and not have a proper dialogue with the biggest trade body in the industry.
	We have a proposal to bring in a tough industry code. It will provide transparent information as a matter of course to anyone who is thinking about taking on a pub, and provide people with legal redress. The code will now be legally binding, so anybody who finds that their pub company or family brewer has not upheld the code will be able to have their case heard in court. There will be a process of arbitration so that anybody who feels that they are being dealt a bad hand by a pub company or the pub industry can have redress through independent arbitration. Those are the things that any tenant who feels hard done by requires to get the assistance and redress that they need. Most importantly, that will be delivered through self-regulation, which I believe will be cheaper, more cost-effective and speedier in producing remedies. We can all point to Departments that have brought in regulation or arbitration that has not worked. We do not have all the answers in government. It is far better to allow the industry this last chance to get its act in order.
	Finally, the idea that the tie is the only thing that is leading to the closure of pubs is blatant nonsense. Yes, it is an issue, but we have to consider the impact of people’s drinking habits, the power of below-cost selling by supermarkets, and the red tape and regulation that we have loaded on to pubs. Do not for one minute think that if the motion were passed and the Government introduced the statutory code, it would solve the industry’s problems. It patently would not.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) for securing the debate, and to the
	hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) for the tremendous speech he gave and for the work that he has done over recent years.
	The work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee has been a model for what a Select Committee should do, not only under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West, but also under that of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff). The Committee is absolutely right to point out the inadequacies of the pub companies system, and in trying to bring the Government to account and asking them to do what is right. The report, which I have read a number of times, shows the tenacity, doggedness and hard work that members of the Committee put into the investigation. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West is right that landlords and tenants across the country will be interested to see what happens at the end of the debate and to hear Members’ contributions.

Kevin Brennan: The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said that pubcos were drinking at the last chance saloon. Given how long the Select Committee has been working on this matter and how long that metaphor has been used, does it not seem that the last chance saloon is somewhere where time is never called?

Paul Murphy: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He and I have drunk in many pubs together over the years, and understand the importance of that.
	I entirely support the recommendations and conclusions of the Select Committee, including a statutory code of practice, a free-of-tie option and an open market rent review with an independent adjudicator. What comes through in the report is the frustration and loss of patience of Committee members with the pub companies. I hasten to add that we are talking not about our family brewers, such as Brains in south Wales, which are respected and good employers with good public houses, but about companies that lack transparency in what they do, and did not impress the members of the Select Committee when they gave evidence. A cursory glance at the evidence given to the Committee shows how the pub companies tried to evade and wriggle out of the important issues.

Greg Mulholland: Does the right hon. Gentleman find it odd that the first response of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to this wonderful Select Committee report was to rush out an invitation to the pub companies to a meeting to talk about how to circumvent the report?

Paul Murphy: I was not aware of that. I know that the hon. Gentleman has done a great deal of work on these important issues using freedom of information requests and so on. It is obvious that the Government must speak to the trade association—it would be daft if they did not. However, there is a difference between speaking and listening to the members of that association and engaging in one of the biggest acts of plagiarism that we have seen in responding to the Select Committee. The Government appear to have put into their sloppy response the wishes of the pub companies in their entirety, including the typing errors. That was a great disappointment, because it was clear that all Front Benchers agreed that there should be a statutory code of conduct and with all the other issues that the Select Committee put forward.
	I have been looking at this matter for three to four years in my constituency. Every Member will have examples of tenants, landlords and publicans in their constituency who have come to the end of their tether with the way in which they are treated by the pub companies. In my constituency, Mr Phil Jones, the landlord of the Open Hearth public house in Pontypool, has been a doughty fighter on this issue. He has given evidence to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and its predecessor. He has shown how shamefully the companies have treated their tenants. It is about time that changed. Like many of his colleagues up and down the country, he has shown Members of Parliament the personal tragedy and misery caused by the way in which those systems operate.
	The Government have to change their mind. Outside in the country, there is a genuine desire for tenants and publicans across the country to be treated fairly and properly. There is no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) has said, that public houses play a tremendous part in our national life and a huge integrated part in our communities. I hope that the Government will listen to Members across the House, change their mind and implement the recommendations of the Select Committee.

Andrew Stephenson: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on granting this debate and the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on his efforts to secure it. I am a great fan of the British pub, so much so that I live next door to one and have worked shifts behind the bar at three of my local pubs over recent months—the White Swan in Fence, the Four Alls in Higham and the George and Dragon in Barrowford.
	As many Members have said, the future of the pub looks far from rosy. UK pubs are in crisis, with 25 closing every week. Pubs are under pressure for many reasons, including the tough economic times that we are in, rising beer prices and taxes, and below-cost sales of alcohol in supermarkets, which I am particularly against. I believe that there is increasing evidence that the beer tie, as operated by the large pub companies, plays a significant role in the decline of the pub trade. I point out explicitly that I am referring only to the behaviour of some large pub companies that own more than 500 pubs, not to family-owned breweries, which tend to act much more responsibly.
	In my constituency of Pendle over the past few years, seven pubs have closed in Brierfield, five in Barnoldswick, seven in Nelson, three in Colne and numerous others in the surrounding areas.

Andrew Griffiths: We want to keep more pubs open and to stop pubs closing. Does my hon. Friend agree that all the evidence shows that free house pubs are closing faster than tenanted pubs?

Andrew Stephenson: The evidence that I have seen does not suggest that. In my area freehold pubs have certainly been able to buck the trend and survive because they have additional flexibility in the products that they can buy and in the other costs of the pub. I have seen some of the practices of the pub companies hindering rather than helping the pub trade in my area.

Karen Bradley: I should like to add my personal experience to the debate, because I am the daughter of a publican who was tied to a large pubco but now runs a free house. I can reassure my hon. Friend that having a free house is a much more favourable position, and that being free of the beer tie is very important.

Andrew Stephenson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why I am speaking in support of the motion’s call for a statutory code for pub companies, despite the fact that I am normally in favour of voluntary regulation.
	A case in point in Colne, where I live, is the North Valley pub, which closed about two years ago. Like a number of pubs in Pendle, it was owned by a large pub company that completely refused to reduce the rent, although the landlord was experiencing vastly reduced sales, partly because of the tough economic times and the smoking ban. I am sure that if there had been an open market rent review and an independent adjudicator, that pub would still have been open today, but instead the landlord had to hand back the keys and the pub is now a plumbing merchant’s premises. I am sure that the pub company involved would say that it was no longer viable, and that it was always going to close down in the long term, but I do not believe that voluntary regulation is delivering what we need. We therefore have to consider putting things on a firmer footing.
	As things stand, the business model of large pub companies is based on extracting an inequitable share of profits through excessive rents and forcing tied landlords to purchase beer and other products at a premium of about 50% on open market prices. That figure has already been mentioned in the debate. Some pub companies, when they set their beer tie, seem to ignore local circumstances completely. From what I am led to believe, landlords in my area tied to Punch Taverns have to pay the brewery something between £1.32 and £1.56 per pint that they buy. In the town where I live, Colne, the Derby Arms sells Foster’s and John Smith’s for £1.49 a pint, and the Wallace Hartley and the Duke of Lancaster sell Foster’s for £1.79. [Interruption.] Move up north. Some of the large pub companies are forcing their tied landlords to buy the product at a higher price than that for which other local pubs are selling it to the man in the street. That inevitably forces pubs out of business, because they cannot compete in the local market conditions. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the motion and calling on the Government to reconsider self-regulation and stop the large pub companies abusing their position.

Hugh Bayley: York’s pubs are part of the heritage of the city. Some of them have been open, welcoming guests and serving beer, for hundreds of years, whereas others have of course opened more recently, but they are all valued by local people and attract thousands of tourists to the city and contribute to the local economy.
	I meet the members of the Licensed Victuallers Association in York from time to time to discuss business conditions, and recently I conducted a survey of 160 pubs and working men’s clubs in my constituency. In their responses, the licensees were extremely critical of the relationship between lessees and pub companies, and one commented:
	“It’s like me renting you a house for a market rent but telling you that you can only do your food shop in Harrods, ie: at top prices”.
	The beer tie, which of course covers a lot more than beer—soft drinks, peanuts and practically everything that a pub sells—is clearly anti-competitive and not in the consumer’s interest.
	The previous Government endorsed the then Select Committee’s recommendation that, over a period of time, all existing and new lessees should be offered a free-of-tie lease with an open-market rent. In its recent report, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee revealed that only 16% of new lessees and 9% of current lessees had been offered that, which is clearly completely unacceptable.
	The Government’s response is out of touch with the industry. We are told that the tie is a lawful practice, so that is all right. However, the Select Committee argues that there should be legislation to give lessees the opportunity of running a business without the tie. The Government’s response also expresses the view that whether a lease or tenancy includes a tie is simply
	“a commercial decision on the part of both parties.”
	That is like suggesting that the competition for road space between a juggernaut and a bicycle is a competition between equals. It is not a satisfactory response.
	If one of the major clothing retailers decided to get into the business of renting out small shops, but restricted its tenants to selling only its own brands and then insisted on selling those brands to the tenants at double the market price, we would immediately say that it was anti-competitive, unfair and wrong, and we would not allow it, yet that is exactly the relationship between the pub companies and many of their lessees.
	I wish to refer to one other issue, which is the retail price of alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences. In my survey, 76% of York licensees said that alcohol sales at supermarkets were the leading cause of their falling profits, and 96% thought that supermarkets should not be able to sell alcohol at cheap rates. Indeed, 70% wanted a minimum retail price for beer sales on licensed premises.
	Before the general election, I wrote a chapter of a policy pamphlet in which I proposed a minimum retail price for alcohol on health grounds. I suggested a price of 50p a unit, which would equate to £3 as the minimum cost of a bottle of wine, or £1 for a pint. Pubs would not go out of business if we had a minimum price of that level; nor would it prevent people on modest incomes from going to a supermarket and buying an occasional bottle of wine or beer to enjoy. However, it would stop the sale of alcohol as loss-leaders by supermarkets, which is doing so much damage to both pubs and public health.
	I believe that the Government’s response is intellectually incoherent. They say that there is no need for legislation on the terms of leases, because they affect lessees rather than consumers. Yet on the subject of the beer tie, they propose taking no real action because it would affect consumers rather than lessees. They should concern themselves both with the viability of pubs as businesses and the rights of consumers, but they fail to do either of those things in their response.

Charlotte Leslie: I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on bringing the debate forward. It is massively important, because as I think we all agree, pubs play an incredibly important role in our society. If we are to talk about the big society, we should recognise that an awful lot of charity ventures and community groups and activities involve a pint, whether of beer or orange juice, at the local pub at some point.
	The subject is massively important also because pubs are a place for social, intergenerational drinking rather than the isolated drinking that very cheap supermarket alcohol can often encourage or the antisocial behaviour caused by preloading—kids drinking a lot before they go out. Pubs are important for all sorts of reasons, as I know we all agree.
	The issue of the beer tie is one part of the equation that is leading to many of our pubs closing. Although we must recognise the importance of that, we must also recognise the other factors in the closure of pubs, which have already been mentioned. Cut-price supermarket alcohol is a massive one and social changes are another, and there may also be things that we can do about business rates and licensing to help to create a level playing field for pubs.

Greg Mulholland: Of course there are a number of factors affecting pubs, but when we compare a tied pub and a free-of-tie pub, we see that the fundamental difference that shuts a tied pub is the pubco’s unreasonable terms.

Charlotte Leslie: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I am just coming to the role of the pub tie and the pub companies.
	It is a shame that there seems to be a lot of distrust among the various factions about how the Government’s response to the Select Committee has come about. I know that figures have been put forward stating that non-tied pubs close faster than tied pubs, but those figures are in dispute because tied pubs tend to be sold to developers before they close down, so they are not listed as tied pubs by the time they close down. There is also the issue of large businesses reporting business failures. There are therefore doubts about the statistics on whether a pub is better off being tied or non-tied.

Greg Mulholland: To be clear, the CGA Strategy figures, which no one disputes, show that between December 2008 and June 2011, the number of tied pubs fell by 3,216, and that in the same period the number of free-of-tie pubs increased by 425. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is baffling that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills simply accepted the British Beer and Pub Association's misleading representation of those events, which, as she says, omitted transfers that happen. in some cases deliberately to distort the figures?

Charlotte Leslie: It is very obvious—this is crucial to the debate—that there is a strong feeling that the response was unilaterally informed. I am not in a position to say whether that is the case, but it is difficult for the Government’s response to have authority, particularly on such an important issue, when there are allegations that it was overly unilaterally informed. I take my hon.
	Friend’s point. The dispute over the figures is very much a case in point. Another result of the beer tie is the substantially lower earning of the publicans who try to manage those pubs.
	That is statistics, but anecdotally—we are all very aware of the limitations and strengths of anecdotes—we hear of people opting out of the beer tie to find their rent increasing. Publicans who have been in the business for a long time and who took on pubs under big companies 20 years ago report how much more restrictive pub companies have become in recent times. Given the upward slope that pubs face in making themselves viable, that seems a counter-intuitive direction for pub companies if they want pubs to succeed.
	Other areas of distrust that are not at all helpful to the debate include disputed membership of the Pub Independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) also mentioned.
	I shall vote for the motion. Given the lack of success of self-regulation in the past, there is a question mark over whether it will work in future. I am not one to run for more regulation—there are lots of unintended consequences.

Brian Binley: Is it not true, however, that there is no regulation, because the voluntary code is supposed to be put into practice in its entirety? The argument that a statutory code means more regulation simply suggests that the voluntary code is not being followed.

Charlotte Leslie: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One issue at stake is the efficacy of a voluntary code. Although there might be problems with the timing of a review, a review of the kind of voluntary code that the Government have suggested would be extremely valuable—it will set in place many of the issues that we are discussing.
	I do not want to take up too much time because lots of hon. Members want to speak. As a Conservative on the Government Benches, I do not believe that regulation is always the answer, but it is sometimes. It must be looked at—it cannot be dismissed out of hand out of religiosity. I also believe that if a business model is not sustainable, it must be allowed to fail. However, the key thing is that pubs face an uphill struggle—it is not a level playing field—in so many aspects of their operation. Looking at the relationship between pub companies and publicans is just one factor in levelling out that very uneven playing field, which has devastating effects on community cohesion not only in rural communities, but in communities all over the country.

Caroline Lucas: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on securing this important debate and commend the excellent Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report.
	It is deeply worrying that the pub market in the UK has become so dominated by just a handful of companies. Tenants are being ripped off by those companies, which can overcharge for beer because the tenants are tied to them. The pub tie has been instrumental in hundreds of successful local pubs going to the wall, which continues.
	Lessees can currently buy only a limited range of beer, often at inflated prices, which restricts pub goers’ choice, prevents small local brewers selling to such pubs and remorselessly accelerates the number of pub closures. That scandal must stop. The Chair of the Committee has reminded the House both in his motion and speech that the Secretary of State promised action to save our pubs if the industry did not get its house in order, but neither the industry nor the Secretary of State has delivered. That is why this debate is so important.
	I welcome the introduction of a new arbitration service, and requirements to follow rental guidelines and to publish national wholesale price lists, but the package as a whole will do little to stop pub closures or to provide meaningful support for sustainable local community pubs.

Greg Mulholland: Apart from concerns about the misrepresentation of PICAS, does the hon. Lady share licensees’ concerns that although PICAS is set up to be an independent arbitrator, it will be funded and controlled by the British Beer and Pub Association, and therefore the pub companies?

Caroline Lucas: That is a good point. I was trying to find something positive to say, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there are concerns about that aspect.
	The Government’s response has failed to address the key issues of providing lessees with a genuine free-of-tie option. It will therefore not rebalance the relationship between struggling licensees and large pub companies. I am also concerned that even the limited package that has been announced will not actually be delivered, given the pub companies’ history of broken promises and abandoned commitments.
	As other hon. Members have said, pubs are central to our communities. Chris Beaumont, the landlord of The Greys in the Hanover area of my constituency, tells me that his is the only pub in the area that has not closed and reopened in the last nine years. The London Unity has had three owners in two years, The Geese has changed hands four times in six years, and the Horse and Groom recently closed and reopened. In the pub trade, such closing and reopening is known as churn. Churn matters, because it means ruined livelihoods for the individual landlords and their families. It also means instability for our pubs and our local economy. It takes years to build up a great community pub. A high turnover of pub landlords as pubs regularly close and reopen sends out a negative message that times are not good and that it is difficult to survive in an area, which clearly does not help other local businesses. The tied scheme was a significant factor in all the closures I mentioned, but the pubcos would prefer that we did know about it: the data on pubs that close do not tell of pubs that close and reopen.
	The other thing that pubcos are less than honest about is that when they sit down and negotiate with lessees, they claim that lessees can always be free of tied options, yet often fail to mention that they must pay a premium to qualify for that. On wines and spirits, the charge is between £4,000 and £5,000 extra per year. It is a similar amount for bottled beers. To put that into context, the typical annual rent for a pub tenant in Brighton is around £25,000 a year. Pubcos are therefore essentially extorting an additional 20% increase
	on the rent to free landlords from the tie. Furthermore, pubcos do not generally offer an untied option on draught beers or lagers.
	The Government must listen to lessees such as Chris and the many others in my constituency represented by the Brighton & Hove Licensees Association. They are all deeply worried and believe as I do that it is high time the Government acted to protect community pubs and lessees. Pubs are pivotal to the economy and the tourist industry, so the health of the sector has a particular resonance in my constituency.

Anne Main: The headquarters of the Campaign for Real Ale is in my constituency, and we host the annual beer festival. I completely concur with the hon. Lady on the importance of tourism and pubs together. Tourism and pubs mean not just casual drinking, but major economic activity in the local area, and she is right to highlight that.

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree that pubs are good not just for the community, but for the local economy—in fact, they are often essential to it.
	In Sussex, for example, we have an impressive range of local breweries, including micro-breweries. If they are to thrive, we need to change the situation that has arisen with ties. We must not allow big business to continue to wield such unfair power over pub lessees by restricting access to locally produced ales. We must make it possible for local brewers to sell their beers to local pubs. Without statutory regulation to ensure fairness, a huge part of the potential market for our local ales is closed off.
	If the Government act to protect and promote real community pubs, they could begin seriously to promote a strategy to encourage responsible drinking and the enjoyment of local ales, ciders and other drinks.
	I fully support CAMRA’s championing of functioning and well-run community pubs. An effective approach to reduce alcohol-related harm must involve support for good community pubs, which provide a safe and responsible place for people to drink. Therefore, parallel to the statutory code of practice described in the motion, our community pubs should be supported with a policy of minimum pricing of alcohol in supermarkets. That would begin to tackle seriously the problems caused for our pub trade, and indeed for wider society, by the off-sale of cheap alcohol, which is often low quality. I accept that is a topic for another debate, but it is not unrelated to the intention behind today’s motion, which is to protect our community pubs.
	In conclusion, I fear that the Government are being cavalier in rejecting the recommendations of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and instead putting their faith in the very companies accused of malpractice to put their house in order finally. The future of community pubs is at stake, so, in common with many other Members, I call on the Government to eschew the grasp of the large pub companies and instead to champion, protect and increase the number of local pubs. The tied pubs in Brighton, Pavilion want to know when the Business Secretary will keep his promise. We need a statutory
	solution that better reflects the wishes of all publicans and pubcos, as well as the careful work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) for securing it.
	Before I came to this place, I spent 27 years as a chartered surveyor. During that time, I carried out rent reviews on most types of business properties, although my experience with licensed premises was peripheral. Underpinning most rent review valuations is a requirement to assess the open-market rental value. That is the best way of establishing a rent that is fair to both parties, providing landlords with a fair return on their investment and tenants with a reasonable opportunity to build a sustainable business into the long term. If the two parties are unable to agree, the matter is referred to an arbitrator or an independent expert.
	It is bizarre that a procedure that is routine for the vast majority of business people who lease premises is not available to a particular group: pubco tenants. Research produced by CAMRA shows that such publicans are at a considerable disadvantage compared with non-tied operators. They are worse off financially and work harder for a lower return, normally burning the midnight oil, tackling red tape and filling in the dreaded VAT return.
	The tied system has some advantages in that it can provide an opportunity for people to set up their own businesses without having to raise large amounts of capital, and it continues to form an important part of many family brewing businesses. However, it should have the potential to act as a stepping-stone, with people then moving on to own their own businesses, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley); it should not drive people out of business altogether.
	The tied system was devised in a different era, which is long since gone, when the pub market was dominated by many family brewers, who wanted to ensure that their pubs sold their beer. Those brewers had a vested interest in ensuring that their pubs were well run, and landlords duly received support. In return, they bought their beer directly from the brewers, with no middleman in between. Many of those breweries were household names, but they have long since gone. Tollemache, Cobbold, Lacons, Bullards and Manns owned pubs across Suffolk and Norfolk. Today, only Greene King and Adnams remain, along with micro-breweries such as Green Jack in Oulton Broad in my constituency. Greene King and Adnams continue to run their tied houses well and successfully, but the market is now dominated by pubcos, which do not brew their own beer; they are middlemen taking their margin, and they have different business objectives from the family brewers. Given those changes, it is appropriate that the tied system should be reformed, and the proposals in the motion appear sensible and logical.
	As we have heard, there are other issues that need to be addressed: the taxation of beer; the reform of licensing laws, which, since 2003, have made it more difficult to play live music; and the below-cost sale of alcohol by
	supermarkets. However, for me as a chartered surveyor, there is one other subject that needs to be addressed: the rating system. Many publicans scratch their heads over how the Valuation Office Agency has arrived at such a high rateable value assessment for their properties. The art of rating valuation has, I am afraid, become totally abstract and distant from reality. Town centre drinking barns, which are subject to a different rating regime, seem to have an unfair advantage over community pubs. That anomaly needs to be addressed, but that is a debate for another day.

Edward Davey: I wanted to intervene on the hon. Gentleman before he finished his remarks, because he is a chartered surveyor. I therefore invite him to welcome the fact that, in our negotiations with the BBPA, we secured a strengthening of the industry framework code, which will specify that all rent review assessments must comply with Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors guidance, and that rent assessments for new full repairing and insuring leases must be signed off by a RICS-qualified individual.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for giving that clarification.
	In the meantime, let me conclude by saying that although there are other issues that need to be addressed to enable pubs to compete on a level playing field, we have an opportunity to address an iniquity that, in many respects, is leftover from a bygone age. I therefore support the motion.

Paul Blomfield: I represent a constituency that includes 197 community and city centre pubs, as well as five breweries. Almost 4,000 people are employed in the industry in one way or another. I cannot miss the opportunity to point out that CAMRA held its last annual conference in Sheffield and, in effect, endorsed us as the real ale capital of the country, praising our unrivalled choice of real ales and pubs—I challenge the Minister to come and sample some of them. I am also a member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. Furthermore, in one of my jobs before being elected to this place I ran a £5 million licensed operation consisting of several bars and pubs.
	We are talking about a sector that employs about 500,000 people in 54,000 pubs. As the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) said, the sector is in crisis, with about 25 pubs closing every week. We know that, and we see it in our communities. As several Members have said, that is a loss to not only the landlords and the people who work in the pubs but the communities.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, there are several reasons for those business failures, but a key factor is the way in which the big companies, which own almost half our pubs, squeeze unreasonable returns out of their landlords to support their own flawed business model. To respond to a point made by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), it is that business model that should be allowed to fail, not the business model of the individual small business men and women who run the pubs.
	It was not supposed to be like this, and those behind the 1989 beer orders legislation cannot have expected such an outcome. The legislation was supposed to open
	up the market to give small players a better chance; instead, the big corporate interests regrouped, and seven pub companies now dominate the industry. However, Parliament has responded, as has been said. In 2004, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry highlighted concerns about the unhealthy and unbalanced relationship between pub companies and their lessees. Five years later, the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise revisited the issue, concluding that little meaningful reform had taken place.
	As several Members have said, that was accepted by the then Labour Government. When the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report was published in March 2010, the then pubs Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), gave notice to the pub companies that if in the Committee’s view the voluntary code was not working as well as it should be by 2011—this is crucial—the Government would put it on a statutory basis.
	The coalition maintained that commitment. When the Secretary of State was questioned in July 2010 by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who is the deputy Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee—he is a relentless champion of small business, and I am sorry he is not in his place to hear me say that—he confirmed that commitment. He said that pub companies were “on probation” from the Committee and that “the commitment is to give them until 11 June and if they have not delivered a more satisfactory arrangement then there will have to be legislative action.” So, in 2011, the Select Committee reviewed the position and gave the Government its report on the industry’s probationary period. In our report, Members from all three parties represented on the Committee agreed that there had been
	“a process of implementation which can only be described as half-hearted”.
	We also found that the
	“BBPA (British Beer and Pub Association) has shown itself to be impotent”,
	and that there had been
	“a lack of meaningful sanctions”.
	We concluded:
	“This latest attempt at reform has failed…We therefore conclude that the reforms do not meet the test set by our predecessor committee.”
	That should have been the end of the matter; following several years of consideration by successive Select Committees and clear pledges from successive Governments, the time had come for legislative action and a statutory code.
	At that point, however, the Government reneged on their commitment and put the corporate interests of the big pub companies before the interests of the small business men and women who run our pubs, and before those of the consumers who use them. Not only did the Government make the wrong call following our report; appallingly, it became clear—thanks to the work of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland)—that they had already made their mind up before receiving our verdict. The Minister should be held to account for that. The industry needs action now, and I support the motion.

Stephen Lloyd: Pubs are a significant feature in all our constituencies. In Eastbourne, when people ask where I live, I say, “Just up the road from the Lamb”, and everyone knows where I mean. That is just a small way of illustrating how valuable pubs are across the UK.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) for securing this debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), who has been leading on this issue for a number of years.
	Before becoming an MP, I had observed over the past 10 years or so a rapid decrease in the number of pubs. Since coming to the House, I have received representations from publicans and constituents in Eastbourne, and I have carried out some research. Much of what I was going to say has already been said, and I shall not repeat it, but I want to mention some research by the Institute for Public Policy Research. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West and many others today have expressed with passion the fact that we have visited this issue on numerous occasions, under the previous Government and this one. The same issue keeps coming up, and the Select Committee keeps working away at it, focusing on what needs to be done. The Government of the day listen, say that they will do something about it, and then do nothing. The reason that we have to keep coming back to it is that the major players behave deplorably; there is no other way of putting it.
	The more I researched the matter over the past few months, having spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, the more I kept asking myself, “What is going on? What other industry would keep saying that it was going to do something, yet keep breaking its word?” Then I thought, “I’ve got it! It’s investment banking!” I am very much a business-wing Liberal, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is not in his place, a great believer in light-touch regulation. There are exceptions to every rule, however. I do not like light-touch regulation for investment banks, because that is what got us into the mess we are now in. Nor do I think that the argument not to regulate the pubcos stacks up.

Duncan Hames: It sounds as though my hon. Friend, like me, hopes that the motion will be successful today. He has had a great deal of experience working with the Federation of Small Businesses. If he were giving business advice, would he ever advise someone to become the tenant of a pubco?

Stephen Lloyd: My hon. Friend is so right: a lot of the work that I did for the FSB before coming to the House involved meetings with landlords who had pubco tenancies. Some of the meetings were among the most desperate I have ever had, because those people were getting absolutely nailed by the pub companies. So, to be perfectly honest, I would not advise anyone to become a tenant under the present criteria. That is absurd, because I am massively pro-small business; it is precisely that sector that is going to get us out of this economic mess. At the moment, however, the playing field is much too uneven, and something really has to be done.
	Let me cite the recent research by the IPPR, which was called “Tied Down”. It talked to 550 publicans, and some of the resulting figures are quite startling. It found that 57% of those subject to the ties that oblige tenants of the big pub groups to buy beer from them were struggling financially, compared with 43% of non-tied landlords. That is a difference of almost 20%. The IPPR’s associate director, Rick Muir, said:
	“Thousands of publicans across Britain are being put under significant financial pressure by the ‘beer tie’. Our survey of publicans shows that they have suffered worse through the recession because of this tie. A recent select committee report shows that the higher prices tied publicans have to pay for their beer are not adequately compensated for by lower rents.”
	That is why we need regulation. The original theory was that the publican would pay a lower rent because of the tie, but some of those absolutely deplorable companies got themselves into such a mess financially because they were so heavily leveraged in debt that they leant on their tenants to a quite disgraceful degree, and lifted the rents hugely.
	The time has come for the Government seriously to look at regulation. I could, just possibly, be persuaded to give the companies nine months and review the situation in the autumn, but this has been going on for years, and I would urge the Minister to agree to a review. Furthermore, he should publicly state on behalf of the Government, in the Chamber, that if the pub companies do not come up to speed this time—and, my God, they have had so many opportunities in the last chance saloon—we will regulate.
	It was noted earlier that pubcos have a lot on their mind at the moment, and we were asked whether we really needed to put them under this pressure. Well, yes we do. How many times are we going to allow them to say that they are going to do something, only for them not to do it? I urge the Government to tell them that if they have not come up with voluntary proposals within nine months, there will be statutory regulation. That is the compromise that I am prepared to accept. I know that the Minister has worked hard in this area, but if the companies do not change, to the extent that we have to regulate, they will have brought that upon themselves. I urge the Minister to take action.

Tom Blenkinsop: I should like to praise the hard work of the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) on this issue over many years; it has been well documented. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on securing this debate.
	Licensees in my constituency are getting a poor deal from exploitative pubcos, and the Government have to act. At present, on this issue the Prime Minister is dodging his round at the bar. Louise Gibben of the Huntsman in Guisborough in my constituency has told me that, after paying Enterprise Inns £20,000 a year in rent, plus her overheads, her business rates and her Performing Rights Society licence, she is left with next to nothing. That is not because of a lack of hard work, or because the pub is of poor quality. Indeed, new local customers have documented the fact on a website that her staff are “great” and that she has made
	“every effort to make the pub a success”
	by serving meals and making it a family-friendly environment. Unfortunately, however, the rep for Enterprise Inns has told her to try harder.
	Sadly, this situation is not unique to Louise. She is not the only one who is struggling to keep her pub afloat despite the rent and contractual conditions imposed by a pubco. For example, nearly 30,000 tenants face the problem of being tied to a specific brewery as part of their tenancy. While tenants are struggling to survive and pubs are closing, pubcos are still reporting millions of pounds in profits. Enterprise Inns, for example, reported a pre-tax profit of £157 million last year, despite the harsh prevailing economic circumstances, yet its tenants in my constituency are struggling to maintain their livelihoods.
	Large pubcos are not producing value; they are exploiting the small business people who, through their own endeavours, are trying to make a living. It is also obvious to everyone that they are not giving their tenants the respect that they deserve. The Government have to act to ensure that relations between the pubcos and their tenants are fair. The self-regulatory framework that the Government are proposing does not go far enough. According to the Fair Pint campaign, it will not require any concessions by the pubcos, and it will result in very little, if any, change to the wholly unsatisfactory status quo.
	The Government’s measures might enjoy the support of the large pubcos, but I know that tenants in my constituency, as represented through the Independent Pub Confederation, feel betrayed and very disappointed by the lack of a genuine free-of-tie option accompanied by a review into open market rent. They feel that any self-regulatory framework will not help them to secure a fairer deal. We cannot trust these pubcos to regulate themselves. I urge this Government, for the sake of tenants and the future of pubs in my constituent, to ensure that any code of practice exists by statute rather than by the will of the people whom we wish to regulate.

Marcus Jones: Pubs are not just places we frequent to buy beer; they are vital community hubs that can be fundamental to our lives. I can say that, given that I met my wife in a pub called the Chetwynd Arms in my constituency back in 1997. Given that it was in 1997, I conclude only that it was probably the only good thing to come out of that year. Since those heady days, we have lost much of that community heritage that our pubs give. At the moment we risk the continuing demise of the good old British pub. Part of the demise has no doubt been exacerbated by the relationship between the pubcos and their lessees.
	History tells us that the arrangements between pubcos, lessees and tenants, which emanated from the break-up of the estates of the large breweries back in the 1990s, were not initially dissimilar to the situation that obtained under the breweries. Where the model differs tremendously, however, is that the pubcos are middlemen—yet another middleman between the product producer and the end user of the product. That has necessarily added costs over a number of years. The costs seem to have been met quickly by the tenants and lessees who have seen many changes over that period: metered pumps, tighter reins on guest ales, loss of machine income, reductions
	in the will to help with refurbishments—these are probably only a few of the additional burdens that lessees have had to face. We need to be aware that much of that stems from 1980s legislation in the context of the fundamental shift towards the large pubco estates that we now have.
	I welcome much of the work done by successive Select Committees on the practices of pubcos, but I think we should be careful about what we wish for as we look to legislate now. We could end up out of the frying pan into the fire because we are in a very different world today than we were when the Select Committee first considered this issue in 2004. Back then, pubs were still in decline, but there has been a huge aggregation of issues since. We have had the smoking ban, increased regulation on alcohol sales, beer duty rising by 35% over the last four years alone, below-cost selling at supermarkets becoming more prevalent and, to top all that, we have suffered the deepest and longest recession since the 1930s. These factors have no doubt strained even further relations between pubcos and their lessees.

Jason McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and would like to add to his list of other factors affecting our local community pubs. We heard about Performing Rights Society licences from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). There is also the cost of live television sport in pubs; one of my local landlords needs £800 a month to pay for that. My hon. Friend mentioned regulation a few moments ago. Does he agree that self-regulation of the pubcos is not working; will he join me and many other Members in supporting this motion and setting a timetable for the Government to look again at self-regulation?

Marcus Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall come on to the issue of self-regulation.
	The relationship between pubcos and lessees has been exacerbated by external factors. That has not been helped by the fact that, as many hon. Members have mentioned, the pubcos are now greatly overleveraged. That leads me to be a little concerned about what we seem to be wishing for. The overleveraging of the pubcos makes the position very difficult for them in comparison with 2004, as the horse might now have bolted. Perhaps we should have done the legislating back then when the circumstances were different.
	When it comes to the external factors I mentioned, there are many things—in addition to what the Select Committee report raised—that the Minister with responsibility for pubs and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who is to reply to this debate, need to look at and address. The Select Committee focused its mind on the relationship between the pubcos and lessees. That is important when we have reached a position in which the pubcos are looking at things in a different light, albeit not quickly enough for many lessees.
	I believe that the voluntary measures put forward are positive and I welcome the industry framework code, which will be legally binding. I welcome PICAS, the three year accreditation code and the strengthening of the framework code. I particularly welcome having a new pubs advisory service. More advice, training and
	information is vital to potential lessees, who need to go into these businesses with their eyes fully open. Having the right training for the lessees going into them is important. Under the old breweries, most of the lessees coming into pubs as tenants had managed pub groups for many years. They knew their trade inside out. That is why they ran successful pub businesses. In that respect, there is a gap now.
	Voluntary measures will be positive only if they are adhered to and only if PICAS has teeth and the pubs advisory service has more independence. That is why I fully support a review of these arrangements over direct, immediate regulation. I think we need to give more time to see whether the voluntary arrangements being put in place are going to work.
	We must try to avoid making the mistakes of the past, which happened when the big breweries were broken up. Voluntary regulation is important. It must be monitored carefully, and we must not look to deal with this issue in a silo or depend only on this aspect to solve the problems that our community pubs face.

John Pugh: I begin by paying full tribute to the Select Committee for its work, particularly for the sterling work done by the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland)—usually the quietest and most self-effacing of men. They have clearly been angered by this issue.
	This seems to be a debate about two solutions to a commonly recognised problem—the unfair trading practices associated with the tie, and the relationship between tenants and the pubco. The problem is not one of competition, and it is not one of competition failure or consumer choice. It is connected with associated issues, which hon. Members have mentioned, such as the decline of community pubs, the decline of community cohesion and so forth—generally regarded as a social ill, except perhaps in temperance circles. What we are debating now is not necessarily connected with that problem, however, as free houses are also closing, disappearing and depriving their community of their benefit.
	At its simplest, the issue is about the running of the tied pub and how it can be made uneconomic for tenants through unfair and non-transparent terms of trade. It has been suggested that this is not an unwelcome outcome so far as the pubcos are concerned, because they are short of capital and in some cases anxious to sell off. That the terms of trade are penal, non-transparent and arbitrary is simply not in dispute anywhere in the Chamber. It has been demonstrated by the turnover of tenants, who are coming and going all the time, by the Select Committee’s reports, and by the Government’s own undertakings to do something about what they have clearly identified as a problem. The issue that divides the House, if indeed it does divide it, is how to find a way out.
	The Government are arguing for a non-statutory code, for fairly straightforward reasons. They dislike regulation in principle—they have said as much—they prefer effective self-regulation, and they believe that a non-statutory code represents a quicker fix. It clearly does not help that their favoured solution is also the
	favoured solution of the accused—the pubcos, in this instance—and that there has obviously been collusion in the refining of the suggestion, but that in itself does not invalidate the solution.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend has made the serious allegation that there has been collusion with the British Beer and Pub Association. What evidence has he for that allegation?

John Pugh: I refer the Minister to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, who presented a fair amount of prima facie evidence that I think impressed the House. However, I want to do the Minister a favour here. It could be argued that the consent and co-operation of the pubcos will make any solution more workable—just as restorative justice is often preferable to sheer penal justice—especially if a self-regulatory code is given some legal significance, although, as other Members have pointed out, a statutory code would lead to more compliance and less legal recourse. That sounds pretty reasonable, apart from the fact that the Government clearly promised something else and have lost trust, and the fact that the pubcos have a dismal record of keeping to commitments, as the Select Committee’s report made clear.
	Overall, the Government’s response represents the triumph of hope over experience, or of realpolitik over trust. There is a long and—as must not be forgotten—sordid history of a connection between politicians and the brewing industry over the ages, dating back to the time of Gladstone and before, with the tenant often perceived by the Liberals as the victim. Ultimately, this is the Government’s call. If they ignore the Select Committee’s advice, they will risk being considered untrustworthy; I think that that is inevitable now. They gamble on the good faith of the pubcos, but what if they are wrong? That is my main question to the Minister. If this is not a solution but in fact an evasion, statutory regulation must be the only conceivable answer.

Dave Watts: Is it not clear that in virtually every case self-regulation does not work, and that Governments are eventually forced to regulate for that reason rather than because they want or prefer to do so?

John Pugh: I think that self-regulation might work sometimes. What we are debating is what will happen if it does not. What do the Government intend to do in that event? I think it incumbent on the Minister to state plainly that if self-regulation does not work, statutory regulation remains an option. If the Government have an objection in principle to statutory regulation, they must make it clear to the House, because that is the most honest and forthright approach.

George Howarth: I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s argument closely. Does he agree—indeed, I think this is his conclusion—that if self-regulation is to work, the industry needs to know that if it does not in fact work, the Government will be prepared to follow up with statutory regulation?

John Pugh: I think that the Government must say that. The industry has been given a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh—however many chances we
	may care to cite. If the Government do not intend ever to introduce statutory regulation, they can and should say so at the Dispatch Box today.

Justin Tomlinson: I pay tribute to all the Members who have shown a real commitment to supporting our essential network of community pubs. That is incredibly important, because we politicians are often accused of not debating issues that are discussed in pubs up and down the country. On this occasion, we can raise a glass to that.
	My local brewery, Arkell’s, which was established in 1843, is an example of good practice in terms of pub ties. I intend to describe the challenges that it faces, and then present my brief conclusions. Arkell’s has about 106 pubs, many of which have tied tenants. That has several benefits. It allows low-cost entry, providing an easy way for someone who feels that his calling in life is to be a landlord to get into the industry; there are economies of scale, and the skills assistance and training which, in most instances, transform the “I think I would be a very good landlord” attitude into some form of reality; and, crucially, it enables an enthusiastic landlord to delegate a number of tasks that he may not himself wish to perform, perhaps preferring to focus on good customer service rather than dealing with the accounts, the portable appliance testing and the insurance.
	Moreover, as a family brewery, Arkell’s has a long-term commitment—historical and emotional—to local communities, and will make long-term investments. My local pub, the excellent Tawny Owl, is installing 85 solar panels which will have a 25-year payback return. Arkell’s has the confidence that that is worth doing. When local community pubs start to struggle, it does everything it can to keep them going. Although sometimes a community will no longer wish to have a community pub and the pub closes, Arkell’s considers itself to be a brewer first and believes it needs to sustain a network to sell its beer.
	The head of the Arkell’s family brewery is James Arkell. When I spoke to him, he highlighted that he felt the problem with the pubcos is that over the past 20 years the bond of trust has been broken. Many speakers have highlighted a number of the issues involved in that, including increasing costs and service charges, and lack of transparency, so that when an enthusiastic potential landlord signs up they are not 100% sure of what they are signing up to, as well as lack of support and aggressive changes in contract terms, often driven by the fact that the pubco has decided it no longer wishes to have that pub site as it will make more money if it sells it. Such behaviour is often driven by the fact that many pubcos are drowning in debt. They are accountable to shareholders, and therefore tend to make short-term decisions. I think that all Members agree that action was needed.
	I welcome the voluntary code. One of its advantages is that it can be implemented quickly, but the Minister must make it clear that if the industry does not sort itself out and act responsibly, the voluntary code will be replaced by regulation. As a good, proud Conservative, I do not normally favour more regulation, however, so we must try to address this issue in the best way.
	We must also be careful what we wish for, because we all seem to want both sides of the coin. At the end of
	the day, these buildings have to be paid for. As I have said, one of the advantages is that this is a cheap form of entry into the industry. What would people think if franchisees who operate under the McDonalds badge instead wanted to sell KFC because that might be more profitable? This has to work both ways, therefore.
	We must continue to review progress, and the pub sector must know that we are doing so. We must then focus on the other issues affecting the pub industry, such as tax, red tape and training. Training is crucial because pub failures are often a result of poor-quality landlords. The next generation of landlords must be able to step up to the challenge and address problems such as the social changes of recent times. Fewer people are inclined to go to the pub, and people tend to go less often. Landlords have to be able to address such trends by providing food and offering quiz nights and sports opportunities. We must therefore look at hospitality management courses in universities and colleges. They train people to work in the restaurant industry, but they should also be proud to train them to work in the pub industry so that we have a new generation of pub landlords who can meet the challenge of protecting those valuable community assets.

Damian Hinds: The importance of this subject is clear from the number of Members present for this debate. That is unsurprising as pubs are an important part of being British; they are an important part of what holds us together and of what, literally, brings us together. This has been a difficult time for the licensed trade as a result of Sky TV costs and Performing Rights Society costs, as well as changing social habits leading to a decline in wet sales, combined with the underlying structural problem that prices go up by price inflation but the biggest cost, which is people, goes up by wage inflation. There are clearly far too many pubs closing in our towns and villages, and we need to find ways to stop that. Changing the tie arrangements is not the right way, however.
	I should declare an interest: I used to work in the pubs and brewing business, but I no longer do so. The industry is built on partnerships between large companies and individual entrepreneurs. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) said, that brings many people into the business who otherwise would have no way in. However, whenever there are two businesses working together there is always potential for conflict, and this business certainly has its fair share of that. We should also make it clear that there are many happy tenants and lessees, however; not everybody is at loggerheads with their partners.
	At its heart, the tie is a way of sharing risk between the real estate owner and the individual entrepreneur. Different sectors do that in different ways: they have franchise fees as a percentage of revenue, turnover-related rents or whatever it might be. In this sector, it just so happens that it is done primarily through the tie. Everything that I know about economics and business tells me that loading all cost on to fixed cost and de-variablising it would increase, not decrease, the number of business failures because of the increased operational gearing.
	There is a somewhat false impression implicit in much of this debate—in the wider sense; not so much
	today—that, were the tie to go, everything else would stay the same, so nobody’s rent would go up. Of course, that is not true at all. There is a required return on every piece of real estate; the market expects a required return from quoted companies.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that hardly anybody in this debate has asked for the tie to go? We are talking about rebalancing the power relationship between lessees and pubcos, so that there is greater incentive for pubcos to provide a more generous arrangement for small businesses.

Damian Hinds: The motion does in fact specify a “free-of-tie option”. Many pub-owning companies would say that some sites are appropriate for leases—where the partner can build the value of the lease by building up the food business, for example—whereas others are more appropriate for a traditional tenancy-type business. The motion as stated would conflict with that approach.
	In addition to that false implicit impression, there is a confusing conflation of tenants and lessees. On the one hand, we seem to be saying that this is only about very large pub companies that run leases; yet a number of those who have spoken in favour of that proposition have referred to the people in question as tenants. I am not entirely sure where the cut-off point of 500 sites comes from. It is possibly intended to target just a couple of companies, but frankly, coming up with a regulatory package for the whole industry is probably not the best way to do that. I fear that that would pull in a couple of other companies it is perhaps not intended to target.
	Most importantly, there is little evidence that I know of that traditional, smaller, integrated brewers have any difficulty with the tie, which suggests to me that there is no problem with the tie per se.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right, and that is one reason why the Government response made a big distinction between the tied tenancy model and the leasehold model of full repairing and insuring leases, with which most, if not all, of the real detriment and problems have occurred.

Damian Hinds: The Minister is correct, and that is indeed in the Government response. Unfortunately, the BIS Committee report, which is a fantastic report and to which we are to some extent referring, does not make that distinction quite so clearly.
	What should we do if the tie is not the answer? Let me start with what we should not do. The Government response puts it rather well:
	“Government should not intervene in setting the terms of commercial contractual relationships”
	where, according to the OFT, there are no competition issues that significantly affect consumers; and
	“whether or not a lease or tenancy includes a tie is a commercial decision on the part of both parties.”

Brian Binley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Damian Hinds: I am afraid not.
	We do need to make sure that there is fairness and transparency and that properly informed people come into this business. On fairness, I welcome the commitment in the new framework code to having no more upward-only rent reviews in full repairing and insuring leases. On transparency, I welcome the commitment to publish national wholesale price lists, although I am not quite clear how that would work. In this business, where pricing is a complex art, wholesale prices are not necessarily that much use unless the actual prices charged and tariffs are known. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—he is not with us today—suggested to the Select Committee that, through the medium of the internet and the wisdom of crowds, it might be possible to use these data in ways hitherto not possible.
	I also welcome the industry’s commitment to look again at common formats for shadow profit and loss accounts to make it easier to compare different pub owners. I agree with the predecessor Select Committee’s finding in 2009 that all the information on a pub’s trading history should be available to the potential licensee. However, it is also important that we understand the limits of that. Pub companies will say that they would love to know a lot more about the trading history of various sites, often having limited sight of that information. We need properly to inform people who are going into the business. I welcome the pre-entry awareness training, but I also agree very much with the Committee’s judgment that we need deep vigilance on its quality. None of that invalidates the tie.
	If we want to be totally focused on keeping pubs open, as I believe all hon. Members do, we have to address two fundamental things. The first is pubs competing on price, partly against the supermarkets, but also, as some hon. Members have said, against managed houses, particularly urban “vertical drinking establishments”, as they are known in the trade, which often severely undercut the traditional tenanted trade. The second is alternative usage value, as one way of keeping pubs open is to make it harder and more expensive to secure a change of use for these premises. That will focus minds u8on making sure that companies are supporting sustainable businesses.

Martin Horwood: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on promoting today’s motion. He is a fellow Robins fan, and I know that he, like me, will have wanted to toast, in a pub somewhere, Cheltenham Town’s phenomenal, confident performance against Spurs last week—but as he rightly points out, the choice of pubs is becoming much more limited. That is happening for many reasons, but the pub tie is clearly one of the factors contributing to pub closures.
	I promoted a private Member’s Bill on this subject last year. It received very wide cross-party support, and that same level of cross-party support has been evident in the backing for: early-day motions; the all-party save the pub group, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland); the Select Committee reports that have repeatedly set a timetable, which has now passed, for introducing a statutory code; and, of course, today’s debate and motion.
	When I promoted my Bill I received a lot of correspondence, especially from the trade. I did receive one letter from Enterprise Inns, which pointed out the value of the tie. Indeed, the company generously took me round my constituency and demonstrated that the tie can sometimes deliver real benefits; that is true, especially where extensive capital investment is required. Yet the overwhelming volume of correspondence from the trade was supportive of a statutory code with a free-of-tie option.
	One of the most powerful letters I received came from someone who said the following:
	“I have the misfortune to have a successful pub/restaurant…under a tied Enterprise lease…Having taken the lease last May from previous tenants who couldn’t make the business work, looking back no one seems to have had success since Enterprise bought the pub”.

Jason McCartney: The hon. Gentleman makes some excellent points, as many colleagues have done on the basis of their own personal experience, be it from meeting their partner in pubs or having worked in the industry. My experience is of my two local pubs in Honley, in Yorkshire. The Allied has had three tenants in 18 months—it is on to its third lot now—and the Coach and Horses, after numerous tenants over the past three years, has just closed. Although an Indian restaurant called Balooshai is going to open, which I welcome, I no longer have a pub within a minute’s walking distance. For those reasons, as well as because of all the other points made in the Chamber this afternoon, does my hon. Friend agree that action needs to be taken?

Martin Horwood: Yes.
	My correspondent also said:
	“The local rep visited at my request this May, only his 3rd visit and I now prefer to deal with him by email to have everything in writing.”
	That supports the points that have been made about loss of trust. The letter continued:
	“He first volunteered the figures from the brulines system, showing my doubling sales, food has also gone from nothing to a very good business and is the only way to make any money on this lease. I then put to him that at £5.5k breakeven I am paying about £23k rent and £50k through the beer tie. This equates to around 17% return on the value of the property while I will struggle to even repay my investment let alone make a return on it or pay myself an income. When I put to him that unless he rebalanced this I would be selling up and moving on he confirmed that I have a lease in order that I can do this.”
	As my correspondent pointed out, the pubco representative would
	“make a mean poker player.”
	My correspondent continued:
	“I’m waiting to see what comes from Westminster…Last resort is to sell up and move on.”
	He points out that this is not just about the price of the beer either, saying:
	“Aside from paying between 1.5 to 2 times wholesale value within the tie. Enterprise restrict what I can buy, for example I can not have Crabbies Ginger Beer”.
	I have never heard of that. [Hon. Members: “Oh dear!”] Other hon. Members obviously have.
	The letter continues:
	“this may seem petty, but Crabbies is heavily marketed and is hence what customers ask for.”
	He concludes:
	“With a monopoly to supply 7,000 pubs, the service is understandably poor, why would you offer more than a week or 2 payment terms, daily delivery, knowledgeable staff, sale or return, dependable deliveries, useful special offers, volume discounts, why would they? It’s not as if I can take my business elsewhere.”
	That inequality in the power relationship between struggling small businesses and the major pubcos demonstrates my point.

George Howarth: As I am ever anxious to be helpful, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that Crabbie’s ginger beer is made in Knowsley?

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman will have to buy me whatever the relevant quantity is in a pub sometime, if we can find one.
	To be even-handed, I must say that I have had quite a lot of complaints and correspondence from lessees of Punch Taverns, too. One wrote:
	“I am a Punch Lessee, I am at present on the biggest discount”—
	in other words on beer price—
	“that Punch can give me, I am paying what is in my view an extortionate rent, an example of pricing is as follows:
	My buying price from Strongbow Cider at highest discount from Punch = £110 + VAT—Price from free-trade Moulton Coors = £64 +VAT.
	This comparison is throughout the range. What chance have I got of staying in business. The truth of the matter is that the prices we have to charge to customers = empty pub.”
	That is the unequal power relationship we need to have tackled, and that view is widely held across the trade.
	The Minister should take credit for the positive steps that he is taking, but none of them really sort out the central issue, which is not the need to abolish the tie or even customer choice and competition among pubs for customer trade but the need to rebalance the relationship between publicans and the pubcos, and the lack of any real incentive for those highly leveraged businesses to offer better terms and avoid pub closures. It is increasingly clear to everyone in the trade, to the Select Committee, which has repeatedly considered it, and to Members across this House, that the only way to do that is to introduce a statutory code with a free-of-tie option. We should not force all pubs out of the tie, but give the pubcos an incentive to rebalance the relationship and offer more generous terms to those struggling small businesses. The pubcos have been drinking in the last chance saloon for so long that they must be under the table by now, and it is time for Ministers to join us all in saying, “Time” and “Enough”.

Lorely Burt: Although several Members have a lot of knowledge of the pub industry, I think I am the only Member who has spoken today who has operated under a tie. Admittedly it was an awfully long time ago, but the experience of operating under a tie is principally the same now as it was when the beer orders came in.
	I agree with the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that the tie is not the problem. In my view, it represents the symbiotic relationship between the company, which owns the pub, and the tenant, who puts his or her labour, blood, sweat and—often literally—
	tears into the equation. Landlords have always complained about the unfairness of the tie—they did it in my day and they do it today—but people should enter into tenancy agreements with their eyes wide open, not with the starry-eyed image of being “mine host” behind the bar obscuring the economic facts. I am glad to see that the new pub advisory services will be established to support would-be tenants and ensure that they understand what they are getting themselves into.
	The difference today is that the vast majority of tied pubs are owned not by breweries but by companies whose purpose is not just selling beer but owning properties that they expected to accrue in value. Several changes over the years have made that a less and less attractive business proposition, including changes in drinking habits, drink-drive legislation and so on. The property bubble has now burst and the pubcos can no longer rely on increasing property values to square a decreasing profit circle. To their shame, some pubcos have resorted to imposing increasingly punitive terms on their tenants to make up the difference, including the full repairing and insuring leases that have been mentioned, along with many other examples, by colleagues today.

Martin Horwood: Does not the point that my hon. Friend is making underline the difference between the kind of tie under which she operated with a brewer and those under pub companies, which have no incentive not simply to sell their pubs and take the cash, as that helps their balance sheets?

Lorely Burt: I agree with my hon. Friend to a degree, but the principle of the tie is the same. We need to make sure that the tie operates fairly.
	These problems must stop, but should the answer be legally to require companies to offer a free-of-tie option? The balance has indisputably tipped too far towards the landlord, but I think we are tipping the baby out with the bathwater. For the breweries, what would be the point of having their own pubs if they could not impose a tie? Why would they go to the trouble of buying and refurbishing property and recruiting suitable tenants only for those tenants to start in competition against them, selling someone else’s beer? Breweries have been anxiously awaiting the Government proposals because they want to invest in the industry, but they will not do that if they cannot keep the tie.

Susan Elan Jones: Does the hon. Lady accept that one problem with the current situation is that it prejudices against local ales? I am thinking of McGivern ales in Ruabon. Its ale is hugely popular and I would like to see more pubs selling it, but the current situation prejudices against that.

Lorely Burt: Indeed, but the Office of Fair Trading report found that there was not detriment to the consumer in response to the tie. The pubs I go to tend to have all sorts of guest ales as well, so there is still that possibility.

Edward Davey: The OFT found that the total volume of beer sales by small breweries increased by 50% between 2004 and 2009 despite the shrinking of the beer market as a whole.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful for that intervention.
	As for the pubcos, those over-relying on the property model have become increasingly unviable and they are being hoist on their own petard. Punch is selling off 2,000 pubs and Enterprise is selling 500. Those that are left will be protected by the code of practice. Why should we wait for two or three years to introduce legislation, given that 98% of the industry has signed up to the code of practice today? The code of practice is stronger and is legally binding. Rents must be based on independent guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and unhappy tenants can appeal easily and cheaply to an independent mediation service and to the courts. On the whole, this is a good deal for landlords and customers. I can support the proposal in the motion for a review to ensure that the voluntary code and other measures are properly implemented and that they work, but I would be happier if a little more time were given to assessing whether they are working properly.
	Where I think that we as a Government have failed is in not taking strong enough action against the supermarkets and their pernicious cheap alcohol policies. Several colleagues have mentioned that. I should like to say, “Well done,” to my hon. Friend the Minister for the safeguards and changes he has managed to wring from the pubcos, but can he now persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury to substitute for the lily-livered excuse for a minimum charge for alcohol of VAT plus the rate of duty, a proper minimum charge to protect our pub industry and the health of our nation?

Toby Perkins: It is a pleasure to stand here at the culmination of this excellent debate, which has shown the House in a tremendous light. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) on securing and opening the debate. I congratulate also the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley) on their work on this issue. It is to the Minister’s shame that despite diligent research and the magnificent campaign fought by many interested organisations, we are debating how to put safeguards into a policy that was announced without proper consultation and in direct contradiction of assurances given by him.
	I shall refer to the remarks of some Members during my contribution, but I must pick out specifically the brilliant and passionate speech of the hon. Member for Northampton South. He described how the Government have reneged on their undertaking, and pointed out that the problem was the major pub companies that have more than 500 pubs. The hon. Member for Leeds North West spoke brilliantly and exposed the shameful collaboration of the Government and the BBPA. That point was also taken up by the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh).
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) talked about the impact on jobs. That is a vital issue: every week hundreds of people lose their job as a result of the number of pubs that are closing.
	The hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) spoke up for pub companies, but said that they were drinking in the last chance saloon—and my right hon.
	Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) rightly said that the last chance saloon sounded like a pub where time is never called.

Andrew Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Toby Perkins: I am afraid I do not have time.
	The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) felt that on balance there needed to be some regulation. She defied those who think that a Member cannot make a serious speech wearing a scarf—something that may catch on.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about how, because of their flawed business model, the big pub companies are squeezing out unreasonable returns. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) said that the Prime Minister was dodging his round at the bar. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) reminded us of the role of the pub in uniting couples over the years. He reflected on the good fortune of Mrs Jones to have been drinking in the right pub at the right time.
	There were interesting contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley). The hon. Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) spoke about alternative ways in which pubs might choose to improve themselves.
	Today we have heard a lot about the history of this issue, but it is worth reminding ourselves that we have had seven reports and there have been four inquiries by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. The Government’s response has many flaws, which other Members have exposed, but I want to talk about two specifically.
	On the issue of pub closures, which was exposed by the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), the Minister has swallowed the big pub company line that free-of-tie pubs are more likely to close. He must know that in general tied pubs do not close permanently, because, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, they have a history of churning through huge numbers of landlords who try and fail—another business going under, another life unfairly ruined. One pub company had a churn rate of 65%, so although the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) says that people should go into such arrangements with their eyes open, that does not reflect the reality experienced by many tenants and lessees. Like the hon. Lady, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was previously a landlord—for Enterprise—and has strongly made the point that many people’s lives were ruined because they were not aware of what they had let themselves in for.
	In March 2010, a Federation of Small Businesses survey found that 84% of tied businesses believed that their relation with the pubco did not allow them to compete effectively, 90% believed that the arrangements meant that they could not make a fair profit, and 87% indicated that they wanted to be free of the tie. Despite that evidence, the Government say in their response, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) pointed out, that the debate over tied or free-of-tie status is a distraction. We think that is entirely wrong.
	The FSB is not the only organisation to study the issue. The Institute for Public Policy Research also questioned tenants and lessees, and its findings showed that free-of-tie landlords manage pubs longer, are more optimistic about the future, are less likely to be struggling financially, and earn more. According to that study, 46% of tied publicans earn less than £15,000 a year. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) noted that the IPPR found that 88% of publicans who claim to be struggling financially identified the beer tie as one of the most significant factors in their financial problems.
	The Minister, in his written response, built a man of straw, claiming that the critics were calling for the tie to end completely. He must know that that is not the case. All the critics are saying is that if the traditionally tenanted arrangement is such a good deal, why can the big pub companies not offer both tied and free-of-tie options, and let their tenants decide?
	The Select Committee discovered that at every turn the big pubcos had failed to take the actions they had promised. In desperation, the Committee said in March 2010 that it would give the industry a final chance to prove that self-regulation could work. It was supported by a sympathetic Government who promised to back its findings. When there is such knowledge and such commitment and when the industry has been given every chance to put its house in order, how can the Minister possibly write that the issue is more complicated than the critics realise?
	What the critics may have failed to understand is not the issue surrounding pubcos but the developing relationship between the pubcos, the BBPA and the ministerial team. As the hon. Member for Leeds North West said, the save the pub group has discovered, through freedom of information requests, that throughout the process the referee was getting changed in the same room as one of the teams.

Edward Davey: Not only does the hon. Gentleman not have any evidence of that, but he has asked me a number of written parliamentary questions, and the answers that I have given him show that what he has just alleged is not true.

Toby Perkins: The Minister’s colleagues, the hon. Members for Southport and for Leeds North West, were deeply uncomfortable about the relationship. The findings of the save the pub group, through freedom of information requests, show that parts of the BBPA’s report—including the typing errors—were just cut and pasted into the Government’s response. I do not know whether the Minister is still listening to me. It is difficult for him to say that there is no evidence when Members who sit on the same side of the Chamber as him feel that the relationship is deeply unhealthy.
	It transpires that before the Select Committee report came out the Minister had made up his mind that he would not consider legislation. As I said, the Government’s response to the report is, in substantial part, the BBPA’s own report. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West said, it is now clear that the Minister has had no independent legal advice on the legality of the framework, and instead has relied on legal advice provided by the BBPA. It has become clear that his officials were assisting the BBPA with the wording of a press release as early as October, when as far as interested
	bodies were concerned the Minister was still sticking to his commitment to push through legislation. In fact he was merely paving the way for the BBPA’s preferred option. That is just what we know. Other information requested by the save the pub group has been hidden by the Government. How much worse can it be?
	The verdict of the all-party save the pub group is damning. It says that the Minister has not been naive; the action is deliberate and, at best, a lazy response by him in the hope of clearing his desk. The verdict of the Federation of Small Businesses is equally clear. It is extremely disappointed by the Government’s response to the Select Committee inquiry and extremely concerned that this agreement appears to have been negotiated with the BBPA and the larger pubcos without substantial consultation with interested parties.
	If a Minister were able to come to the House and create a policy that united opinion throughout the House, including the Select Committee, and among the numerous groups referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds North West, we would call him a genius. I have no idea what the word is for the opposite of a genius, but the Minister appears to have achieved the absolute opposite of that united opinion. Who else is calling for the Government to legislate on this issue? Who else does the Minister think simply does not understand its full complexities? Alongside the Select Committee, the Federation of Small Businesses and the all-party save the pub group, there is CAMRA, the Independent Pub Confederation, Fair Pint, the GMB, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, the Guild of Master Victuallers, Unite, the Society of Independent Brewers and the Forum of Private Business. If the Minister could leave the Chamber and come up with a policy that united all those people in his favour, he would take a huge step forward in his career.
	As has been declared, this was an opportunity to take steps to resolve the problems faced by the 87% of landlords who indicated that they wanted to be free of the tie. The Minister has wilfully and deliberately set out to avoid living up to that commitment. He says in the Government’s response that the industry will waste no time in living up to these demands, given the parliamentary interest in the matter. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) made clear, that is a risible claim, as all the evidence we have seen from the pub companies over the years demonstrates.
	Who has the Minister let down? He has let down the Select Committee, which worked so hard and which he promised to back, and all those who contributed to its hearings. He has let down the small family brewers who have been shut out of many pubs as a result of the pub companies’ market domination. He has let down the Federation of Small Businesses, which campaigned so strongly, and let down CAMRA and the Fair Pint campaign. He has let down the 25,000 publicans across Britain who run tied pubs. Most of all, he has let down the customers who were relying on him to secure a fairer balance between landlords and the pub companies.
	Never before has there been such a concern about crony capitalism or such an expectation that the Government should stand up for small businesses. This issue confirms what we have always suspected: beneath the warm words, what we are getting from the Government
	is business as usual. They are on the side of the rich and the powerful, standing up for large vested interests and leaving publicans to fight for themselves.
	Ultimately, this issue set three tests for the Minister. Would the Government intervene to ensure a fair relationship between big pub businesses and small business people? Would they keep their word and do what was right, even when a big, powerful lobby asked them not to do so? Would they listen to the voice of the people, the voice of small businesses and the publicans at the coal face of the industry or, when they were needed, just back down? On all those tests, the Government have failed.
	This is not a party political issue. Everyone agrees that the Government have got it wrong, as we heard today from Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. A huge opportunity has been missed and the pub lobby will not believe that this House is serious about action, but it is not too late. Members must ensure that the industry is held to account by supporting the motion, ensuring that an independent body is allowed to come in and monitor what actually happens. Only then will there be any chance of people having a serious hope that the House will take action. I commend the motion to the House.

Edward Davey: It might surprise the House to learn that I am very grateful for today’s debate and for all the contributions made by hon. Members, not least because our deliberations will be read by the industry, including the pubcos, and because there is agreement on a number of issues. We all agree that, while we want to enable businesses to generate growth and jobs, we also want them to operate fairly. There is no doubt that the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee identified a number of concerns about how the pub industry is operating. I strongly agree with the importance the Committee and hon. Members attached to the role of pubs in communities the length and breadth of this country.
	Before addressing some of the specific issues raised today, I would like to outline the reforms that the Government recently secured from the industry so that no one is in any doubt about them. The reforms deliver on our promise to take action and are much more significant than many Members have suggested today. The industry framework code is to be made legally binding, and I can tell the House that all six of the big pubcos, as well as a number of the smaller family operators, have already declared publicly on their websites that they are legally bound by this code and sent letters to their licensees setting out an open and unlimited offer to this effect. That already represents over 70% of the tied trade and 100% of the large pubcos.
	A pub independent conciliation and arbitration service—PICAS—is to be set up. It will provide mediation and arbitration on any matter relating to the framework or company codes and the results will be binding on both parties. That will be done by the end of next month. There will be a three-yearly re-accreditation process for company codes, administered by the British Institute of Innkeeping benchmarking and accreditation scheme through examination of annual compliance reports and
	spot checks. A new pubs advisory service—PAS—will provide an initial offering of free advice to all prospective and current tenants and lessees. There will be a strengthened framework code, with a particular focus on full repairing and insuring leases and on issues such as rent, insurance, transparency and pre-entry training. This strengthened code was agreed between the BBPA, the BII, and the FLVA, which is a licensee organisation, on 22 December. Those reforms have the potential to deliver real change for tenants and lessees across the country, and they are being brought into effect far more quickly than legislation could achieve.
	There have been suggestions of collusion, with allegations that in the process the Government listened only to the BBPA and were deaf to the voices of licensees. That is simply not true. I have met CAMRA three times over the past year; I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, the chair of the all-party save the pub group, four times over that period; I have met the Independent Pub Confederation; and I have met representatives of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, a licensee organisation, with which we were in detailed discussions while negotiating with the BBPA.

Toby Perkins: Did any section of the representations from the groups that the Minister has just mentioned find its way directly into the Government’s response, or was it simply the BBPA’s representation that turned up there?

Edward Davey: I heard the concerns of those organisations and the problems in the industry, and that is why we have taken action. The hon. Gentleman tried to say that this was not a party political issue, but he made it into one. He and his hon. Friends had 13 years to take action, but they took none.
	During this process, I have read copious reports on and information about the concerns of licensees, and we have taken action to address their concerns when we have felt that action is appropriate. We will always listen—

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No.
	We will always listen, but that does not mean that we will agree on every point, such as on the point about the beer tie, which I will discuss in due course.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend is a former Business Minister.

Edward Davey: I will give way later on; I want to make some progress, because some serious allegations have been made.
	Reference has been made to the freedom of information request, which is alleged to show that we just accepted the status quo and the views of the BBPA. The Government have now released more than 90% of the documents requested under the recent FOI request, and more than 500 pages of documentation can now be found on our website, including discussions and minutes of meetings
	with the BBPA, the ALMR and CAMRA. They show clearly that we listened to all sides and negotiated hard with the BBPA.
	For example, there are the minutes of the meeting with the BBPA on 12 October, in which I laid down the conditions that any self-regulatory deal must satisfy. Otherwise, we would have had to consider regulation. The minutes show that the key conditions were those that I laid down—that the code must be legally binding, that the code must be strengthened and that there must be an independent dispute resolution service.
	Following my initiative, the BBPA went away to write its report, which it sent to me on 20 October, and I can assure the House that in the meeting on 12 October the BBPA did not want to give the concessions that we wrung from it. Indeed, an e-mail on 20 October, which is in the FOI request, shows that my officials contacted the ALMR, a member of the IPC and a licensee organisation, within half an hour of receiving the BBPA’s offer in order to seek that organisation’s opinion. In the freedom of information request, there are e-mail exchanges in which we pressed the BBPA on how it was to make the code legally binding, and to give firm dates for implementing its commitments and establishing PICAS. That information is available on our website, and I am happy to place it in the Library.

Ian Lucas: Does the Minister agree that the Government’s response falls short of the undertaking given to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in July 2010?

Edward Davey: No, I do not agree. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would take action, and we have taken action.

Ian Lucas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, and that action is a lot greater than any the Labour party took over 13 years.

Brian Binley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Davey: No, I want to make some progress. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a bit, because in two-and-a-half-hours’ evidence to the Select Committee he quizzed me for an hour, so let us be clear that I have answered an awful lot of questions from him.
	Why did we not legislate? Some in this Chamber wanted the Government to step in and regulate, and some even believe that we promised to do so, but we promised to take action, and that is what we have done. We have had to consider all the evidence and the action that we would take, and I believe that the action we have taken is appropriate and effective.
	We did not legislate because, first, we wanted to act now, not in two or three years’ time. To legislate, we would have had to carry out a lengthy process of consultation, of drafting and of pre-legislative scrutiny, and after that we would have had to fight for a slot in the legislative Sessions. It is highly unlikely that such a slot could have been found quickly.
	Secondly, this is a deregulatory Government. Additional regulation should always be a measure of last resort. For the Government to intervene in the commercial contractual relationships between two parties, they must
	have very good reason. That is in line with the Government’s top priority of achieving strong, sustainable and balanced growth, and generating a climate that supports enterprise and creates jobs.
	Thirdly, the Office of Fair Trading found in October 2010 that there were no competition issues affecting consumers in this market. That is a critical point, but I am afraid that the Select Committee report did not discuss it. I am aware that in some circles, it is believed that the OFT is wrong. That is not a view that I share. As Minister with responsibility for competition, I have high confidence in the rigour and accuracy of the OFT. Without evidence of competition issues, the rationale for Government intervention is significantly reduced. That is in contrast to the situation in the groceries market, where the Competition Commission found evidence of competition issues. The Government have therefore committed to introducing a groceries code adjudicator as soon as parliamentary time allows to ensure that large retailers treat their suppliers fairly and lawfully.

Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister give way?

Edward Davey: I will in a bit, but I want to make progress.
	What we have delivered instead of regulation is a self-regulatory regime much stronger than we have had before. As a result of commitments made by the pubcos, they will be obliged to comply with the code and it will be delivered at least two or three years sooner than under an Act of Parliament. That is in line with the Government’s commitment to focus on delivering reform for small businesses right now, not in a few years’ time.
	I have listened to campaigners on the issue of the tie, including the IPC, CAMRA and hon. Members. After careful reflection, I disagree with them. I say careful reflection because, like other Members, I have always been worried by the tie, primarily because I had assumed that it must be interfering with competition and was therefore against the interests of consumers. That is why, like others, I was keen for our independent competition authorities to consider the matter. The OFT’s investigation concluded that consumers are well served by British pubs, that there is choice and that a wide variety of beers is available. To override an independent competition authority would be a serious decision for a Minister to take and would require significant evidence that the authority had failed to deliver. As CAMRA decided not to challenge the OFT further, presumably it did not have further evidence; we certainly did not.

Martin Horwood: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Edward Davey: No, but I will in a second.

Brian Binley: Will the Minister give way now?

Edward Davey: No.
	Secondly, when one examines where the relationships between pubcos and licensees have gone wrong, it quickly becomes clear that the major problem is not with the traditional tied tenancy, but with full repairing and insuring leases, which are mostly, but not exclusively, used by the pubcos. There are problems with pre-entry training, transparency and rent guidance not being followed, but not with the basic question of whether a
	pub is tied for beer. That is why my solution targets full repairing and insuring leases and leaves alone the traditional tied tenancy model, which is used successfully, and for the most part amicably, by local and regional brewers alike.
	Thirdly, the market is driving a solution. The figures show that since December 2008, slightly more free-of-tie pubs closed than tied pubs. That is true whether one uses the gross closure rate or the net closure rate, which CAMRA says is more important as it takes account of churning. Furthermore, big pubcos are selling off hundreds of pubs a year, many of which are being bought by family brewers or converting to being free-of-tie. Since December 2008, three times as many free-of-tie pubs have opened than tied pubs and a further 1,300 pubs have converted from being tied to free-of-tie. Where the market is working, the Government do not need to intervene.

Brian Binley: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I remind him that I asked the Secretary of State whether he would uphold the undertaking given by the previous Government that they would act on recommendations from the Select Committee if they were meaningful and in its report. Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State said that he would uphold that undertaking? Does he accept that that is the truth of the matter?

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would take action, and we have taken action. Let us be clear that what the Select Committee wanted was legislation to deal with the problem. Through negotiation and using contract law, we have got legally binding codes of practice that are in the spirit of what the Select Committee asked for. More than that, the Committee asked for an adjudicator, and we will have PICAS to adjudicate on the code by February. Not only are we tackling the issues that the Committee raised, we are doing so far more quickly than expected. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.

Toby Perkins: It is one thing for the Minister to argue that what he is doing is better than what he undertook to do, but it is simply wrong for him to try to claim that he is doing what the Secretary of State and he undertook to the Select Committee to do. He must know that the commitment that the Secretary of State gave is not what he is delivering. Why does he not just be honest and say that?

Edward Davey: Throughout my speech I have shown that the hon. Gentleman was wrong in almost everything that he said to the House, and he is wrong again.
	I recognise that some Members would want us to have gone further, yet our reforms, including the strengthening of the code, its establishment on a legally binding footing and the soon to be completed establishment of PICAS, will mean real change for licensees and tenants across the country.

Martin Horwood: I believe that Members can welcome the positive steps that the Minister has announced but still believe that they do not really tackle the key issues, which are not about compliance and competition but,
	as the debate has shown, more about the relationship between struggling small businesses and big pubcos. If we are to have one last drink in the last chance saloon, what time scale will he now unambiguously put on the self-regulatory regime before statutory action is taken?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We do need to give the self-regulatory regime time to work, and I pay tribute to him, and even to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West—[Hon. Members: “Even?”] I say “even” because we do not always see eye to eye on every measure. However, both my hon. Friends have campaigned very hard, and I can tell the House that in my meeting with the BBPA, my hon. Friends' campaigns and the Select Committee reports were critical to my being able to make it absolutely clear that, this time, the pubcos really had to come up with the toughest self-regulatory regime imaginable, or else Parliament would wish to take action. We have come up with the toughest self-regulatory regime imaginable, but it needs time to work. I commend our response to the Select Committee to the House.

Adrian Bailey: A lot of points have been raised in the debate, and I will try to respond to them in a very brief time.
	First, a number of Members have raised the issue of regulation. I wish to make it quite clear that the Select Committee put the ball in the industry’s court to find an appropriate level of regulation to address the problems that we highlighted. It has had any number of opportunities to do that and failed.
	The Committee is not instinctively a body of regulators. It has a coalition majority, and at the time of the report it included a former publican, a former pub company owner and, I believe, a former brewery regional manager. There was a level of expertise and historic involvement in the industry that meant the Committee would not favour excessive regulation.
	There are issues to consider about the brewers and their tenants and about the pub companies and their licensees. An adequate consultation with all sectors of the industry would have enabled those issues to be teased out and the introduction of an appropriate regulatory regime that would have addressed them sufficiently. Now, the question is whether the Government will conduct such an inclusive consultation to ensure that that takes place.
	Another issue that has been raised on many occasions in the debate is the OFT verdict, which is a red herring. The OFT did not give the pub companies clearance in their contractual relationships. It said that the matter did not come within its remit. The Government have used that as a basis for saying that we should not interfere. I find that rather strange, given the fact that Governments have historically introduced many statutes to deal with injustices and imbalances in contractual advantage.
	The Government's response is therefore not sufficient, and I find the Minister’s approach to be somewhat incoherent. On the one hand, he says he cannot interfere, but on the other he argues in the House that he is taking
	action. Either he can interfere or he cannot, and he is either taking action or not taking action, but he cannot marry the two.
	At the end of the day, the Government’s approach will be judged by the industry as whole, and not just by the BBPA. We will be able to judge the success of their approach by changes in the relative balance of income on the two sides of the dispute, which has implications for the rate of closure within the industry. In effect, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
	The motion provides a mechanism for a professional, comprehensive and inclusive judgment of whether those changes happen. If that mechanism does not work, the Minister, whether he likes it or not, will have no alternative but to introduce a statutory code that will be inclusive and representative of all bodies within the industry.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ proposals for reform of the pub industry fall short of the undertaking given to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in July 2010 and that only a statutory code of practice which includes a free-of-tie option with an open market rent review and an independent adjudicator will resolve the contractual problems between the pub companies and their lessees; and calls on the Government to commission a review of self-regulation of the pub industry in the Autumn of 2012 to be conducted by an independent body approved by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee.

Andy Slaughter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, of which I have given you and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) notice. Hammersmith flyover in my constituency has been closed for three weeks. Although we hope for good news as early as today about the reopening, it is clearly a serious matter for my constituents. The hon. Lady has convened a public meeting—nothing wrong with that—to discuss the matter, but she has advertised and convened it in my constituency. She has invited various public bodies, but not me, to the meeting to discuss these matters—she has not invited me to be on the panel.
	This goes beyond the ordinary trespassing that Members sometimes commit. I have never heard of an event of this kind. In reality, it means that the public bodies may not attend, because the meeting is now party political. I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady is a new Member and might not know the protocols of the House as well as others do.

Mr Speaker: I will restrict my understanding thus far, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notice of his intention to raise the point of order. It will almost not be a matter of order for the Chair, but, reserving my position, I think it only right before I say anything further—I am sure he will accept this—to ask the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) to offer her own thoughts, of which I have had some notice, on the Floor of the House.

Mary Macleod: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This public meeting is being held purely to help local residents. It is for Transport for London and Hounslow and Hammersmith councils to update local residents and help them. Frankly, that is what I came into politics to do.
	I am extremely disappointed that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has attempted to threaten, intimidate and bully me into doing what he wants and play political games. He knew what was happening—I told him at the earliest opportunity. I invited him to the meeting verbally and in writing. He said initially that he was happy with the plans for the meeting.
	I have worked well recently with my Labour Hounslow council and expect to have a very positive working relationship with the new hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). It is really sad that we cannot help our local residents without an hon. Member trying to stop us. We should work together for the good of our local residents and our constituencies.

Andy Slaughter: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman’s point of order is on an unrelated matter. [ Interruption. ] Order. Before the hon. Gentleman jumps to his feet, let me say this: I am grateful to him for his notice and for his attempted point of order, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she has said to me via e-email and on the Floor of the House. I do not think this is a matter of order for the Chair; it concerns a matter that is operational, outside of the Chamber of the House. I would want to reiterate the exhortation to Members to co-operate on matters affecting neighbouring constituencies and to observe the customary courtesy of informing other Members about actions and visits proposed in another Member’s constituency. These are, however, not rules of the House; they are conventions. I intend to leave this matter here for today. I say this with no discourtesy to any hon. Member, but because there is pressing business of the House to which we need to move.

Ian Lucas: rose—

Mr Speaker: Before we do so, I must, of course, take what I gather is a totally separate and unrelated point of order from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas).

Ian Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, that is indeed completely separate. In the previous debate, the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, expressly contradicted the content of the motion in an intervention on me, but the Government did not oppose the motion when it came to a vote. Can you offer me guidance on ascertaining the Government’s position on this matter?

Mr Speaker: Thankfully, that is not a matter for the Chair. I have no influence over the conduct of the Government, the decisions they make about policy or the way in which they choose either to vote or not to vote. In saying that, I think that the hon. Gentleman will hear my expression of relief.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding what you have just said, it is a matter of order that it is the custom of the House for a vote to follow a voice. If the voice spoke in one direction, but did not follow that up with a vote, that would surely be disorderly.

Mr Speaker: I think if somebody says one thing and then votes in a different direction, that would be a breach of order. I think if an individual Member—be that a Back Bencher or a Minister—gives an indication of a view, but chooses not to vote in the Division, that is qualitatively in a different category. I have a sense coming on of a potentially stimulating but arcane and preferably delayable exchange on this matter with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Perhaps we can now move to the second debate, which is of great interest to a great many Members, on parliamentary representation.

Parliamentary Representation

[ Relevant documents:  The Final Report from the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation), Session 2009-10, HC 239-I, the First Special Report from the Committee, Session 2009-10, HC 449, and the Government response , Session 2009-10, Cm 7824 . ]

Anne Begg: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the fact that there are now more women hon. Members and hon. Members from Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities than in any previous Parliament; notes that the need for greater diversity in the House has been accepted by the leadership of the three main political parties at Westminster; is concerned that increased competition for seats at the 2015 General Election may leave under-represented groups more poorly represented among approved candidates, and in the House thereafter, unless mechanisms are employed to tackle continuing inequalities during candidate selection; and calls on the Government and political parties to fulfil commitments made in response to the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) in 2010, including the commitment to secure the publication by all parties of diversity data on candidate selections.
	I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time this afternoon to debate the important issue of the representation of this House. If Parliament and, indeed, the Government are to be successful and to be able to make the best decisions for the country, the people taking those decisions need more closely to reflect the society we purport to represent. I make that point because the desire for a Parliament made up of Members from a wide range of backgrounds comes not from some political correctness, but from the belief that a Parliament that does not reflect society will not be effective.
	The proposal in the coalition agreement to give anonymity to people charged with rape horrified female MPs from all political parties, who united to force the Government to back down. If only one or two MPs had objected, would the coalition have changed its mind? Probably not. But the critical mass of female MPs, speaking with a common voice, made the Government realise they had got things badly wrong.
	There should be a place in this mother of Parliaments for individuals from all sections of society. We should ask ourselves why certain groups are under-represented. The reason is not that the electorate will not vote for women, people with disabilities, people who are gay or people from ethnic minorities—they clearly will; otherwise many of us would not be here—but that political parties do not choose enough candidates from diverse backgrounds to fight winnable seats. Furthermore, if not enough of those candidates want to become an MP, we must examine how we do our business and how we run our politics and our Parliament to identify the barriers. Many of those people would make excellent MPs, and the loss of their expertise and talents results in a diminished Parliament. Such a Parliament could lose legitimacy; indeed, it might never have had legitimacy because it had never been properly representative.
	Why are we having a debate on this subject, more than three years away from the next general election? The timing is pertinent for three reasons. Two years ago yesterday, the final report from the Speaker’s Conference on representation was published. One of its
	recommendations was that there should be a debate on the Floor of the House every two years to review progress. Well, we are one day out, but in parliamentary terms I think that that is pretty close.
	The second reason for holding the debate is that, although this Parliament is more diverse than previous ones, we still have some way to go before the House of Commons reflects the population more closely. Only 22% of MPs are women and only 4% are from an ethnic minority, and the proportion of those who have a disability or are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender falls far short of the numbers in society. Establishing a lasting improvement in the diversity of Parliament, however, requires cultural change. There is no quick fix: it is necessary to keep making the arguments and to keep refocusing people’s minds on the need to tackle under-representation.
	The third reason for the debate is that the gatekeepers to the selection of MPs, the political parties, have already begun to select their candidates for the 2015 general election. That election will be accompanied by a reduction in the number of MPs, and it is therefore important that the leaders of the political parties are reminded of the commitments that they made to the Speaker’s Conference to take action to improve the diversity of candidates. At the 2015 election, established MPs will have to fight each other for their seats, and those who lose in the selection process could be promised a vacant seat elsewhere. The parties might therefore be tempted to suspend their attempts to select candidates from different backgrounds, preferring instead to look after existing MPs. It could therefore be harder for candidates from under-represented groups to be selected. As a result, the next Parliament could be even less diverse than this one.
	Members who do not think that could happen need look only at the 2005 election in Scotland, when we faced the abolition of 13 seats. The Labour party’s use of all-women shortlists was suspended in Scotland, and the number of women MPs dropped. At the UK election that year, however, for the first time in history more than 50% of the new Labour intake were women. That shows that mechanisms such as all-women shortlists work, and that when they stop operating the number of women who are selected, and consequently elected, drops.

Fiona O'Donnell: As someone who benefited from an all-women shortlist, I wonder whether my hon. Friend would go further and address the issue for working-class women. Does she support my view that we should have a ceiling on the amount that a candidate can spend during the election process, and that they should have to declare donations?

Anne Begg: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There are enormous economic barriers that prevent not only women but people from lower socio-economic groups from getting into Parliament. The political parties should certainly look at her suggestion in relation to their selection process, and consider capping the amount that can be spent. At the moment, it can get into the thousands, and that can rule out many candidates.

Chris Bryant: I want to add some statistics to those that my hon. Friend has given. In Wales, in 2001, when all-women shortlists legally had to be suspended, the Labour party had to select 10 candidates
	for seats in which the sitting Member of Parliament was retiring. In every single case, it selected a man. Does not that highlight the problem of what happens if there is not an all-women shortlist?

Anne Begg: Indeed. That ties in with my fear for the 2015 election—that the advances we have made could start to be reversed. While huge advances were made on the representation of women in the 1997 Parliament because of the use of all-women shortlists, the number of women in Parliament dropped after the 2001 election. That happened not just in Wales but across the whole country, because this mechanism was not available to the Labour party to use in its election process.

Andrew Murrison: Our constituents tend to be interested in the skills and experience of Members of Parliament and candidates, and they are interested in their occupational background—perhaps even more than in their membership of particular social groups or minority groups. In that regard, why does the hon. Lady think that the number of MPs from manual worker groups and from professional groups has declined since 1979, and what can we do about it?

Anne Begg: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. This is a problem not just for the lower socio-economic groups, for whom the economic costs of putting themselves forward as a candidate can be prohibitive. Those working in the professions are often too busy doing their daily work, so they might not have enough time to invest in politics, making it difficult to build up the reputation they need to become the kind of candidate of whom the “selectorate”—the party members—would approve. The professionals might not have been seen knocking on doors or delivering leaflets, which puts them at a disadvantage in the selection process.
	I strongly believe that we should have a Parliament of all the talents, with people from different and varied backgrounds. Although this Parliament might be more diverse in terms of ethnicity and gender, there might have been a narrowing of the routes whereby people are able to get into Parliament—perhaps a drift towards the professional politician. Those involved in politics are more likely to be selected than those who have been getting on with their life by doing another job.
	I believe that the key to getting more people from under-represented groups into Parliament is to improve the supply side, which perhaps answers the question of the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). This means identifying and encouraging people from these groups to think about a life in politics. Some welcome progress has been made in dealing with some of the supply-side barriers—for example, the establishment of the Commons nursery, making Parliament more accessible both physically and culturally and the Government’s commitment to develop a strategy for access to elected office. Further progress is still required, however, on the House’s sitting hours and on recognition of family life in the rules operated by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Normal people with normal family lives have to feel that they, too, could be an MP. I think we are still some way from achieving that.
	A key recommendation of the Speaker’s Conference that remains unresolved is on political parties publishing diversity data relating to candidates’ selection. It is worth setting out again the reason the conference thought this was so important.
	We recommended the creation of a formal monitoring scheme, requiring political parties to publish anonymised data on the gender, ethnic background and other characteristics of candidates selected. The work people did before putting themselves forward might be one of those characteristics. Knowing that the parties already hold this type of information, the conference gathered it from them and published it in the six months preceding the general election. We are very grateful for the support of the parties and their leaders in enabling this to happen, which shows that it can be done easily.
	We also secured an amendment to the Equality Bill—now section 106 of the Equality Act 2010—to make such monitoring permanent. Since the election and the end of the conference, however, the central publication of data has stopped. Section 106 of the Equality Act has not yet commenced, and the Minister might want to reflect on that. I still believe that a formal publication scheme for this data is essential. Transparency forces the issue up the agenda as it enables the parties to compare their performance and challenge each other to do better. The mechanisms of publication require comparatively little effort, and there is a consensus that greater transparency would be helpful. To make the process effective, the monitoring scheme needs to be structured so that it is clear that the data from each of the parties is directly comparable, that precisely the same information is given in each case and that it is reported within the same time scale.
	I have been trying to obtain information from the political parties for nearly six months, with few results. An honourable mention should go to the Green party, which provided information following the initial request, although the fact that the party has only one MP may have made that easier. My most recent letter was sent to the party leaders just before the Christmas recess. I thought that if I went to the top I might receive an answer, but to date I have received only one substantive reply, from the Deputy Prime Minister: all credit to him.
	Given that, I am sorry to say, the Liberal Democrats’ record in terms of the diversity of the MPs is the poorest among the main political parties, it is heartening to know that the Deputy Prime Minister is taking seriously the need to rebalance his party’s parliamentary representation. It is also good to know that the Liberal Democrats finally recognise that work needs to be done on the supply side, and that mechanisms are needed to encourage people from a variety of backgrounds to put themselves forward. I hope that the 40 candidates identified by the Liberal Democrats will eventually be selected for seats where they have some prospect of being elected—for it is not good enough to select candidates for all the unwinnable seats; they must be selected for the winnable ones as well—and I hope that, having been named and shamed, the other party leaders will respond soon with commitments to do all in their power to demonstrate that they too are taking the issue seriously.
	Given that the Speaker’s Conference no longer exists, central management and guidance are required in regard to the provision of this information. It would be helpful
	if the Minister could tell us what progress has been made in that regard, and whether her Department might be able to act.
	I believe that parties must adopt specific mechanisms to improve the diversity of their MPs. Although I think the Labour party has proved that all-women shortlists have been effective, I appreciate that that may not be the way in which other political parties wish to proceed—which is fine as long as they develop their own mechanisms to address the shortfall, rather than arguing that candidates from the under-represented groups would somehow suddenly appear if only they were good enough.
	As has already been mentioned, one category in particular is still under-represented in this House. I refer to members of the lower socio-economic groups. It is likely that disabled people will also belong to that category. The cost of putting oneself forward for selection is prohibitive for anyone who does not have a reasonable income, and I urge the political parties to address that issue as well. I hope that some suggestions will be made later this afternoon.

Margot James: Does the hon. Lady agree that both people with manual backgrounds and those in the professions are discouraged from putting themselves forward by awkward economic considerations? Those in manual trades cannot afford the whole process of campaigning, taking time off and so forth, while those in the professions cannot afford to give up the salaries to which they have become accustomed.

Anne Begg: That is an excellent point, which may explain some of the narrowing of the backgrounds of some of the people who are now trying to stand for Parliament. It is crucial for work to be done to deal with that. We, as political party animals ourselves, should be spotting people’s talents and encouraging them. Many people out there have never dreamt of being Members of Parliament, but we know that given the right chances and the right encouragement they would make excellent MPs, and we diminish this place by not giving them such encouragement. Some women are a bit more diffident than many men, and may need that extra push. Once they have bitten the bullet and put themselves forward they may make excellent candidates and excellent MPs, and be a credit to their parties.
	I congratulate the Government on going some way to help disabled people to overcome the financial barrier which may exist by means of their access to public life fund, which I understand is due to be launched next month. The Minister may want to say something about that as well. However, although the fund will provide financial help with the extra costs of having a disability, there will still be the basic cost of becoming and being a candidate, which can be prohibitive for many people.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is clearly immensely passionate and knowledgeable about this subject. She mentions the different socio-economic backgrounds of people entering Parliament, and she will be aware that nowadays one of the main routes to becoming an MP is working in Parliament, perhaps on an internship, many of which are unpaid. Does she therefore support the access to public life fund, which could offer financial assistance to help people to come and work in Parliament?

Anne Begg: I am aware of the work my right hon. Friend has been doing in encouraging people from lower socio-economic groups to put themselves forward, which does, of course, take money. I would like to see how the access to public life fund works for disabled people. Perhaps the Minister will tell us a little more about how it will work in practice? All these routes should be open, but that is not a responsibility of Government alone; political parties might also look at how they finance candidates, and they might be funded in order to do that work. We suggested that in the Speaker’s Conference report.
	There is some good news to report, but there is still a long way to go in achieving a fully representative Parliament in this country. It will not happen by accident or because large numbers of people from disadvantaged groups suddenly have a burning desire to be an MP and will be able to leap over all the economic and practical barriers to get selected as a candidate for one of the political parties, which to many remain secret societies, and then arrive here in Parliament in a blaze of glory.

David Nuttall: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the biggest disadvantages a man from a working-class background in one of our large inner cities might face is the existence of all-women shortlists, as they may well feel that their route to joining us in this place is closed before they even start?

Anne Begg: I would accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument if every seat had an all-women shortlist, but only 50% of Labour seats has an all-women shortlist, so the man to whom he refers has access to 50% of the seats. This issue is not just about women or people from ethnic minorities; it is also about people with different backgrounds and life experiences. The political parties should therefore be encouraging that man and helping him, and perhaps providing some funding to allow him to get selected in the seats that are available. That is not happening at present, but it should happen.

Joan Ruddock: My hon. Friend might also say to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) that historically it was the practice of the Conservative party to have all-male shortlists. What was the disadvantage to the men with manual skills in those all-male shortlists?

Anne Begg: Indeed, and work has been done on the all-male shortlists of all political parties in the last general election.
	It will take a culture change and a lot of hard work before the people out there can look at us in here and say, “They represent me.” I hope Members will agree that that work needs to continue.

Mr Speaker: In view of the extensive interest in this debate, I have had to limit the time for Back-Bench speeches still further, from eight minutes to six.

Adam Afriyie: First, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, for convening the Speaker’s Conference and giving it your support? I think that has made a huge difference. I also thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) for the careful tone in which
	she presented the conference findings and for recognising that parties may strive in different ways to achieve the outcome that all Members want, which is a more diverse, representative-looking Parliament. That Parliament might not be proportional to the exact numbers of the various groups in society, but we must have a Parliament that is in touch with the people it serves and that is able to understand and feel the issues that are important to the public.
	I made a pledge to myself that I would seldom talk about issues of race, ethnic minorities and diversity in front-line politics, and I made that commitment for two or three key reasons: first, and not least, because I do not think that race actually exists in biological, genetic or evolutionary terms anyway. Above that, categorising people into clear groups can often be more divisive than allowing things to evolve to begin to reflect a nation over time.
	I have broken that pledge today because, as the first black Conservative MP in the party’s history, I thought I would share one or two insights into my journey here, the barriers and obstacles I have met, and the approach that can be adopted by political parties and Parliament in future. I shall try to do so as quickly as I can within the six-minute limit. I am happy to take one or two interventions—which may help to some degree.

Steven Baker: I congratulate my hon. Friend. He does a fantastic job for his constituents and I hear fabulous reports about him at all times.

Adam Afriyie: I am sure I would flush up if I was able to; I thank my hon. Friend very much for his intervention.
	As I said, I want to share some insights and experience, but if the House will bear with me I will make a couple of points very crudely because I do not have time to put them more subtly; I hope the House will understand that they are well intentioned, and that if I had more time I would elaborate slightly further.
	A key reason why I joined the Conservative party, about which I will say a few words in a moment, is that I felt that during the ’80s the Labour party was quite patronising towards ethnic minorities. There was a sense on the part of the incumbents in politics—those with power—that ethnic minority groups were somehow hapless and weak and needed all the support and help they could get, and all sorts of extra support in order simply to compete. I rejected that prognosis—[ Interruption. ] Please bear with me: I am putting this very briskly; with more time I would put it more subtly. I rejected that notion because, irrespective of which group in society one comes from—whatever one’s physical or socio-economic characteristics, whatever one’s background or heritage—everybody is equal. It is a question of whether the opportunity exists to get involved in the political process and to be recognised for ones innate, equal abilities. That is part of the reason why I joined the Conservative party, and something to reflect on.

Chris Bryant: By way of counterpart, I joined the Labour party because I found that the Conservative party was not just patronising about homosexuals, but downright dismissive and aggressively so, and used the full force of the law and of Parliament to legislate that homosexual relationships were nothing other than “a pretended family relationship”.

Adam Afriyie: We live in a wonderful world where both parties have progressed enormously.
	The Conservative party is interesting, in that it tends to take slightly more time to respond to society and to the change in social mores, which is partly because we are conservatives by nature—with a big C and a small c. However, over time the party does seem to progress quite rapidly, once it gets the gist of things and begins to respond to and reflect the society around it. It is interesting to note that the Conservative party was the first party to elect a Jewish Prime Minister, and a bachelor as a leader of the party; and of course, it elected the first female Prime Minister and leader of the party. We will see what the future holds, but interestingly, despite some of the criticisms of the party, in many ways it has been quicker to reflect the make-up of society, certainly in its leadership.

Jo Swinson: I wanted to help the hon. Gentleman slightly by pointing out that he omitted to mention that his party was also the first to elect an out gay woman as the leader of any party within the UK. It became that when Ruth Davidson was elected as the Scottish Conservative leader.

Adam Afriyie: That is absolutely spot on. Sometimes the image projected is not quite the same as the reality of how the Conservative party functions and, more importantly, the results it delivers.
	At the last election, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and I were the only two ethnic minority—if hon. Members wish to box us in in that way—Conservative Members of this House, but our number has now increased significantly to 12. That occurred not through positive discrimination—it was not done through all-black, all-black-and-ethnic-minority shortlists or all-female shortlists—but by an organic process; it was an evolution that gradually reflected the society around us, and I am delighted at those results. There are now 49, rather than 17, women representing the Conservatives in this place, which is a huge step forward, and it has been made without the need for those draconian, divisive and often counter-productive measures.
	However, there is a generational lag, which we must, to some degree, accept. Equally, if any hon. Member here was to move to another country and seek, as an adult, to become a Member of the Parliament of that nation, it is unlikely that that would happen or it would be exceptional if it did. There are so many ways in which we can split society into groups—by gender, skin colour, sexuality, disability, socio-economic background and so on. Hon. Members from all parties in this House have a joint desire to see this place be more representative of the country we serve. My biggest plea today is that we do not rush in and embrace quotas—all-women or all-black shortlists, or shortlists with only people with disabilities on them—because such an approach is counter-productive. In a way, it ingrains a sense that there is an elite and that somehow these hapless groups have to have this extra special support, and it alienates others. That form of “groupism” in society is, in many ways, more dangerous than a short-term under-representation over a period of a few years.
	I do have a dream that this place will be more representative of the nation at large—that is happening at a rate of knots in most parties and I hope it will
	continue. But if I was to urge anything, from my own experience, I would urge us not have a knee-jerk reaction and have exclusively feature-based shortlists at this time.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing this debate. May I say to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), for whom I have great respect, that the Fawcett Society estimates that at the current rate of progress it would take 14 Parliaments—nearly 70 years—to get equality, so he may need to reconsider his view?
	I understand that there have been 4,897 MPs since 1918, of whom just 366 have been women, including the 142 serving today. When I was elected in 1987, this place was not a comfortable place for women. Sexist behaviour and intimidation were rife, as was documented by the redoubtable Tory MP Teresa Gorman, who had to put her age back by 10 years to get selected. There were no shrinking violets in the 1987 intake, but there was no women’s agenda either. The House was clearly deeply unrepresentative of society as a whole, and I often said that it was a cross between a boys public school and a working men’s club.
	So some of us were very much committed to making great changes, and we encouraged others to stand. During the 1980s and 1990s the number of women candidates did rise significantly, but of course they did not get elected because they were in the unwinnable seats. We Labour women knew that we had to get our hands on the seats where sitting Members were retiring or the seats that were targets for our party and likely to be won. For that sole reason, we adopted the all-women shortlists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, when they were challenged, the number of women MPs of course fell back in 2001 after the tremendous progress of 1997.
	Following the 2001 election a report was produced by Laura Shepherd-Robinson and Joni Lovenduski, and I want to refer to their findings as they are so relevant. They stated:
	“Although fewer women than men come forward for selection, women are not selected in proportion to the numbers…Instances of overt discrimination…occurred to a greater or lesser extent in all the political parties…There exists a self-perpetuating male candidate syndrome whereby selectorates choose candidates that match their pre-conceived idea of what an MP ‘should be like’—i.e. like the last one…‘Favourite sons’ who are virtually guaranteed selection before the process even starts were reported as a problem in all the political parties…Ethnic minority women faced additional problems…Justification for this was…that voters would discriminate against the candidate and selecting them was therefore ‘too much of a risk’.”
	Those findings are highly relevant today, because we still have female representation of only 22% from a population of 51%, and ethnic minority representation of less than 5% from a population of more than 10%. People with disabilities are hardly represented at all, even though they are provided with the incredible role models of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett).
	As the motion says,
	“increased competition for seats…may leave under-represented groups more poorly represented”
	in future. It is more than likely that under the pressure for places, parties will revert to the type described in the study I cited, and there will be an expectation that progress on equality should be delayed.
	What can be done to increase the representation of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities? First, this House must continue to reform itself so that it becomes a place in which ordinary people feel that they can be productive, effective and able to sustain a private life alongside a parliamentary and constituency life. Further reform of the hours, the calendar and procedures must be undertaken, and I am glad that we will have an opportunity to do that this year.
	We must also ensure that our parties remain resolute in the aims they have all espoused of greater equality of representation. That means constant vigilance and analysis of how selections are progressing, financial help for those who need it, and the creation of level playing fields so that people from diverse backgrounds can come forward, attend all the selection conferences and stand a fair chance.

Bob Stewart: As a new Member, I sat in the Members centre and beside me was another new Member, from the Opposition. I watched and was alarmed that she spent two and a half hours on the telephone from the Members centre trying to find accommodation and failing. In the end I said, “What’s the problem?” and she said, “I’ve just got no money left and I can’t live.” That is wrong and we must put it right as soon as possible.

Joan Ruddock: I support the hon. Gentleman absolutely. Of course, we had the MPs’ expenses scandal and of course there were abuses, but we have gone in a direction that means that it is very difficult for people of ordinary means to support a second home and everything that goes with being an effective MP. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that is yet another reason why it will be increasingly difficult to get the equal representation in this House that we all seek.
	Recent experience from all parties demonstrates that only determined positive action can produce the results that we need. When sitting MPs are displaced as a result of the boundary changes and the reduction in numbers, that will be much more difficult. All-women shortlists will have to continue in the Labour party and, frankly, I think it must be obvious to the other parties that that is the only mechanism to have delivered really big numbers.
	There are two possible ways in which a group’s interests can be represented—by the presence of its members in the decision-making process or simply by having its interests taken into account in that process. History shows that the interests of women, ethnic minorities, other minorities and those with disabilities have not been fully taken into account at any time, and if we do not continue to assert our rights to direct representation, our numbers will fall and our democracy will be much the poorer.

Jo Swinson: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock), who has long been a campaigner on this issue. I warmly welcome the debate,
	which comes at a timely juncture two years after the publication of the Speaker’s Conference report. I was proud to serve as a member of the Speaker’s Conference and would like to place on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and to your predecessor, for your chairmanship of it. I thank also the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who was a marvellous vice-Chair and did so much work to produce the report and body of work that resulted.
	It is absolutely vital that we address these issues of representation, for some of the reasons that have already been outlined, such as the legitimacy that this Chamber can have in the real world out there. There is also the loss of talent from which we suffer because there are people out there who would make fantastic Members of Parliament but who at the moment do not think they could come here. The evidence from business and elsewhere shows that diverse teams work better, and that is as true here for MPs on Select Committees and in Government and Opposition teams as anywhere else.
	Let me touch on some of the developments we have seen since the Speaker’s Conference report and highlight some of the areas that have not yet been acted on. A few Members have spoken about the background of people who come to this place as Members. In 1979, 3% came from a political organiser background, but that figure rose to 14% in 2010.
	Thanks to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), whom I have worked alongside, there is now the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme. We are grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for supporting the scheme and to the House of Commons Commission for finding some initial seed funding, which has been backed up by generous support from the private sector. Of course, we would still encourage more private sector companies to get on board and support the scheme, which is enabling us to open up internships and parliamentary placements to people who would not otherwise have the means to come here and experience working in Parliament. I hope that some of those individuals will go on to work in different roles within politics. Indeed, I look forward to the day when one of them sits on these green Benches.
	I am fortunate to be participating in the scheme and I have a wonderful young woman in my office, Nyree Barrett-Hendricks, who is bright, personable and hugely enthusiastic, but who would never have had the opportunity to come and work in Parliament otherwise. I very much hope that the scheme will be able to expand in future and be part of the solution to dealing with the issue of background. Clearly, however, much more needs to be done.

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Lady also pay tribute to organisations such as Operation Black Vote, which does a very similar thing to help people gain experience who might then consider standing for Parliament?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady makes a very good point; I certainly pay tribute to Operation Black Vote, with which I have also worked in previous years and had people shadow me, and I know that many other Members have done the same.
	There has been a lot of progress that we should celebrate. Recommendation 56 that civil partnership ceremonies should be allowed to be held in the House has been actioned. Indeed, I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) might have been the first to take advantage of that change. [ Interruption. ] Perhaps he was not the first but there have been several, which is great.
	Recommendation 51, about having a nursery and crèche within the House of Commons, has been implemented. That facility is used by many Members I know, and is very welcome. Even the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which does not always have a good reputation in the House, has implemented recommendation 52, which allows Members to take part of their salary in the form of child care vouchers. Previously, that option had long been open to other members of staff in the House but not to MPs.
	There has been progress through the coalition agreement on the establishment of a disability democracy fund, but I hope the Minister will say more about where exactly that has got to. I know there was a consultation last year and it would be good to know when that will come to fruition.
	There is also the recommendation that section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983 should be abolished to prevent discrimination against Members who have mental health problems and have been sectioned, who currently are not able to retain their seat. I understand that there is a private Member’s Bill before the other place, but I should welcome any response from the Government about their commitment to the issue.

Sam Gyimah: I welcome the points the hon. Lady is making about what Parliament as an institution should be doing to lower the barriers for entry to the House, and to teach people who want to be Members of Parliament the rules of the game, but does not the prime responsibility fall on political parties? They need to make sure that they improve representation. On the Conservative side the numbers of women, and certainly of non-white candidates, increased substantially at the 2010 election, but that was because of the efforts of the party rather than of Parliament as an institution.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman is right. That point is vital, and I shall refer briefly to parties later.
	Progress has been less good on other recommendations. Recommendation 4 is that Parliament’s education service should have its objectives changed so that it explicitly encourages a wider range of people to become candidates. Unfortunately, that recommendation has not been accepted by Parliament; a response to a parliamentary question was that it could be effected under existing objectives. That does not go far enough. When someone comes here for a tour of the House it is one of the most opportune times to ask them why they do not consider standing for Parliament and becoming an MP. That is the moment when there may be the most inspiration, and we should make that an explicit objective of the education service.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen South touched on recommendation 5; she talked about political parties being honest in publishing exactly where they are at in terms of candidate selection. That monitoring data should be in the public domain so that researchers can
	analyse it and use it to show where some of the issues are. That still has to be put into action by all the parties, although some have made more progress than others. I hope that today’s debate may encourage more movement, although we should congratulate the hon. Lady on managing to say something positive about the Deputy Prime Minister—I hope she did not find it too difficult—and I am delighted that he responded in full to her letter.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; I could not resist intervening. She will be aware that the Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme has been included by the Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition’s social mobility strategy. On that basis, does she agree that if the Government wish to take some credit for that, they might also consider making some financial contribution?

Jo Swinson: As usual, the right hon. Lady puts her point eloquently. I believe there is an event for the social mobility strategy this evening, so I may have the opportunity to bend the ear of individuals about it.
	I want to talk a little about what the Liberal Democrats have been doing, because I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen South that we do not have good enough representation. I have been working on the issue in the party for 10 years, with some success, but equality guarantees are not always guarantees of seats. In the last Parliament, half the seats where a Lib Dem MP was standing down selected a woman candidate, without positive discrimination mechanisms, but that did not result in the election of those individuals. That is certainly one of the difficulties with the measures that are implemented, but I am looking forward to attending, on Sunday, a candidate leadership programme weekend to meet 40 inspiring candidates, whose biographies I have read. I am sure that will help to yield results in future.
	What next? I shall briefly make two points, because I know time is pressing. First, recommendation 54 of the Speaker’s Conference urges changes in our sitting hours. Over the next few months the House collectively has the chance to do something about that, when the Procedure Committee report comes before us for debate. I very much hope that Members will bear that recommendation in mind and vote accordingly.
	Secondly, as well as a debate every two years, we need to go further and think about a mechanism for regularly holding the Government, the House and the parties to account. For example, we might consider something like the questions we have in the Chamber to the Electoral Commission and the House of Commons Commission on a five-weekly basis.

David Blunkett: I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, to the Minister and to the House if I am not able to be here at the conclusion of the debate.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), not only on securing the debate but on the work she did under your patronage, Mr Speaker, leading the Speaker’s Conference. Some of us in the House today spent well over a year of our lives—not full-time, but it seemed a lot—on the Speaker’s
	Conference and I hope that the recommendations can be followed through and that it will be possible to make progress.
	In order to avoid repetition, I say at the beginning that the issues surrounding the next general election, not only the lower number of Members of Parliament, but the dramatic boundary changes, present a challenge for all political parties. We need to appeal to them to take the matter very seriously if we are not to take a step backwards on gender, on sexuality, on ethnicity and on disability. I am genuinely deeply worried. I hope that the Access to Public Life Fund and the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) on internships will assist.
	On a lighter note, I think that we have made progress in the 25 years since I came to the House. I was asked when I first came in with my dog whether there would be a problem with animal noises, and I gave an assurance that the dog would not be disturbed at all by the kind of thing that he was likely to hear in Prime Minister’s questions at that time. I did, however, face the enormous problem of persuading people that additional resources would make it possible to work on equal terms. It was a fiasco. We had a working party between the two Houses under the chairmanship of Lord Jenkins, as he became. The recommendations had to be voted on on the Floor of the House. We have come a long way since that terrible embarrassment. One Member, who is still in the House, said to me, “You’re very lucky to get these extra resources.” I said, “I’ll swap you any time.”

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend may be interested to hear that when I was helping to organise the memorial service for John Smith at Westminster abbey and I said that we would need a bowl of water put out for my right hon. Friend’s dog, the usher said, “I’m not putting a bowl out for any bloody socialist’s dog.”

David Blunkett: All I can say is that I wish he had not discriminated on political grounds.
	There are major challenges facing us. The nature of the Palace of Westminster has changed to some degree, but not enough. It is not quite the old boys’ club that it was when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) and I joined in 1987, but people still have in their minds a major psychological barrier about what they will experience here. There are also practical barriers, which have been referred to, in the procedures of the House. I hope that we can be more radical in the next three and a half years than we have been in the 25 that I have been here. Unless we change the way we vote, the knowledge about votes, the way in which the day is organised and the support for families, we will not have the diversity and the reflection of society that all of us in this House want.
	I congratulate those who have broken through even bigger barriers than I have been able to challenge in my life. To win a by-election as a member of an ethnic minority is a real step forward. Reflecting on the years gone by, I think that it has been shown that the way in which society gradually changes is reflected here, but we have a role in accelerating that change by the way we behave.
	The thing that I have probably done best in my public life and am most proud of is not something from my eight years as a Cabinet Minister or from my time as leader of a council. It is having changed attitudes outside—
	the way that people perceive not only others but, sometimes, themselves. That is a comfort when things go badly wrong.
	I agree that we need to revisit the way in which we encourage diversity in supporting Members. I have to pay tribute—I know that it is not fashionable—to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in relation to disability issues. It has been extremely understanding and helpful in a way that I hope will be reflected in further revisions to support family life, particularly in terms of gender challenges. I look forward to IPSA responding to that challenge.
	It is important that the Government are able to respond too. I think that Departments have improved. I hope that the Office for Disability Issues will continue and will be able to make progress, along with the Access to Public Life Fund. However, there are still ingrained challenges in terms of covert discrimination. There is no question but that people are sometimes grumpy about being expected to go the extra mile to help those facing a challenge that is perfectly manageable and can be overcome with a bit of thought. People do not like to talk about it; they do not even like to think about it; but, believe me, they do behave in quite extraordinary ways.
	What I want to emphasise this afternoon is that we must go right back to the way we develop an understanding of citizenship in schools and persuade the Secretary of State for Education, even at this late stage, not to downgrade the programme we put in place 10 years ago and instead to build upon it. It would be an irony indeed if newcomers to this country who were becoming naturalised were more savvy about politics and better able to get to this House than the population as a whole because they had experienced the necessity of passing the dreaded test. Once we have done that and we have continued to change the nature of our politics and the way we speak to each another, we might get even more progress within political parties.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has kindly indicated—I have no buzzer—that I have only a few seconds left, so I will bring my comments to an end. Political parties have made progress, as has been mentioned this afternoon, but, my goodness, there are still major blockages. Unless the political parties take a lead, how can we expect the nation as a whole to do so?

Amber Rudd: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I feel very strongly, as I know do many fellow Members, that it is important to raise diversity issues constantly in the House in order to get a better outcome for everyone. I saw a very good film this week about a young woman who was very clear and focused on what she wanted to achieve, despite the obstacles in front of her. She became a Member of Parliament and then Prime Minister. As we reflect on the issues we can address in order to raise diversity in the House, I feel certain that many people who see that film, whatever their politics, will be as shocked as I was at the sight of one woman among so many men. The film shows very clearly the difficulties she faced but nevertheless
	overcame.
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I now have to put my glasses on—my diversity is something to do with age as well as gender.
	We have come a long way since Lady Thatcher, but there is still a lot to do, which is why we are having this debate. Each party is addressing diversity in its own way, but it is absolutely clear to me, having listened to the debate this afternoon, that everyone is committed to it. It is important to say that it is not right to think that there can be one solution for all parties. Each party has different political philosophies and it is inevitable that we will have different ways of approaching the diversity issue. The Labour party has dealt with it through all-women shortlists and quotas and has had its success as a result—of course it has; they are all-women shortlists—but I do not believe that that is a desirable way of introducing more women into Parliament.

Adam Afriyie: In all frankness, had there been all-black shortlists or anything of that sort in the Conservative party, I can honestly say that I would never have applied and made my way to this place, because one’s whole life is based on achieving things through one’s own abilities, talents and effort, and I would have found it very difficult indeed to have been put on a list based on a physical characteristic.

Amber Rudd: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution—it is always nice to have one’s views confirmed in so eloquent a way.
	Where are we now? Some 16% of Conservative MPs are women. Only 12% of Liberal Democrat MPs are women, but it is nice to hear that the Deputy Prime Minister has that in his sights. The figure for the Labour party is 32%, which brings us to an average of 22%. I believe that the figures for the parties masks a very significant success for the Conservative party in introducing more women. It was suggested earlier that the Conservative party effectively had all-male shortlists before, and those of us who have followed party selections and elections to Parliament for some time were slightly surprised at the 2001 general election when only one of the 26 new Conservative Members elected was a woman. However, from that very low base the party has made a tremendous change, and I think that the evidence for that change is the fact that we could achieve it by persuasion, nudge and training.
	Between 2005 and 2010, we had a clear strategy to deal with the issue. We had an organisation called women2win—

Brooks Newmark: Hear, hear!

Amber Rudd: It was ably supported by my hon. Friend—who is here and a man; it is always nice to have a man stand up in support of more women in Parliament—by Baroness Jenkin and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is of course the Home Secretary. That organisation did an enormous amount in mentoring and training and, if I may say so, in persuading the Conservative party to improve the training of those who make the selection, because they also need to understand that there are different types of MP.

Anne Begg: I appreciate that all-women shortlists are not for the Conservative party, and that great strides forward were taken at the general election, but the lesson from the Labour party is that if such pressure is not kept up, and if the mechanisms that the hon. Lady describes, which the Conservative party put in place ahead of the 2010 election, are not repeated at the next election and the one after that, the danger is that things will go backwards.

Amber Rudd: I agree. It is absolutely essential that the item remains at the top of the agenda for all political parties, but my point is that my political party will not, I believe, be introducing all-women shortlists. Most of my colleagues agree with that, because it is not the only way to achieve this much-needed increase in the diversity of representation.
	After the 2010 election, we had 147 new Conservative MPs, of whom 36—or 25% of the new intake—were women. Now, 25% representation is a big step up from the 9% that we had before 2010, so that approach has been a tremendous success, and we have achieved it without the undemocratic approach of all-women shortlists.
	The problem that we are trying to address is not just to do with Parliament, however, because there is a problem with women’s representation not just at Westminster but, as we have discussed in previous debates, in public companies, at the top in boardrooms and in different elements of life. I picked up a copy of The Guardian recently, and it stated that
	“78% of the UK’s newspaper articles are written by men, 72% of Question Time contributors are men, and 84% of reporters and guests on Radio 4’s Today show are men.”
	Women and ladies, we need to do something about that.

Margot James: I wonder whether my hon. Friend noticed on the “Andrew Marr Show” at the end of last year its review of 2011. It was a wonderful canter through all the year’s political highlights, and approximately 20 politicians featured—but not one woman.

Amber Rudd: I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for improving on my case.
	My point is not to hide from the important problem that we have to address in Parliament, but to say that it is a wider problem that the Government as a whole need to address in order to ensure that we get all women to the top of the ladder, and to demonstrate to young women that they, too, can achieve and get to the top. As we have heard, it makes good business sense, and in public life it is absolutely essential, because if we want to be truly democratic we have to reflect the diversity of the whole country. It is more important in Parliament than anywhere else.
	It is an incredible privilege to be a Member, but we have a responsibility to ensure that Parliament as a whole reflects the diversity of the country. We should not, however, have a system of mandatory quotas beyond each individual party deciding to make its own case for them, because each party must have its own approach.
	To me, and to my colleagues in the Conservative party, all-women shortlists are a form of surrender, because what do we admit if we introduce them? We admit that somewhere the problem is so ingrained that we have to impose a shortlist. It is far better to ask,
	“What is the problem? Why are we not getting more women, more people from ethnic minorities and more disabled people? And what can we do to support them so that they are equally valued and equally selected in a selection process?” Let us not surrender. Let us not approach the matter in terms of quotas. Let us look at the root of the problem and, in that way, try to encourage more people to come through and, like us, become Members of Parliament.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was proud to serve as a member of the Speaker’s Conference. I apologise to the House for the fact that I will not be here at the end of the debate, because I shall be chairing a charity function.
	All hon. Members have agreed that a more representative Parliament is better for politics, above all because of the issue of justice and so that everybody has an equal chance of being elected. It builds people’s confidence in democracy to see people such as me in Parliament. It also, and I do not think that we have talked enough about this, leads to better decisions. That is at the heart of the matter.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) told me that when she was first elected child care was not regarded as a political issue and Parliament never debated it. She and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Dame Joan Ruddock) were among those who made sure that the issue was normalised in politics.
	Shortly after I was elected in 1997, I telephoned the Clerk of the Select Committee on Defence to research how much of a difference women had made in politics. In its 17-year life, that Committee had never had a woman member. There were two women members after the 1997 election. The Clerk said, “Fiona, of course there is a difference. We always used to talk just about weapons and ammunition, and now we talk about the families of the soldiers.” We know now how critical the family members of those who are fighting in battles overseas are to their success. Having different voices in Parliament changes the terms of the debate.
	In the 1997 Parliament, which recorded the biggest difference in the number of women, we saw our effect in the Budgets. In the Budgets of ’97, ’98 and ’99, the amount of money in women’s purses increased by £5.30 a week, compared with an increase of £2.30 in men’s wallets. Having more women does not automatically bring that result. We can see, depressingly, that the cost of recent Budgets and the last comprehensive spending review to women has been £8.80 a week, compared with a cost of £4.20 for men.
	This issue is not just about representation but about power. Women can have power, but we need to ensure that we have it. One thing that I admired the Prime Minister for saying in opposition was that he aimed for 30% of his Cabinet to be women. There is not enough progress on that aim. In Parliament, one has much more power when one is a Minister. I am shocked that 11 out of 24 Departments have no women Ministers. I urge the Minister for Equalities, who will respond to the debate, to take action on that. Many of the women Ministers are in the other place. There is a shortage of women’s voices in Departments, and not just in the little Departments. In the Ministry of Justice, the Department
	of Energy and Climate Change, the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office there are no women Ministers. I urge the women on the Government Benches to do whatever they can to change that. If they do not, we will carry on having stupid decisions.
	This debate has been partly about the problem of women-only shortlists. I do not regard them as a problem. The only person who has ever called me a quota woman is the woman who stood for the party that held the seat before I took it. Nobody has called me that since. Women shortlists are a tactic, but that does not mean that people who have got here in that way are diminished. There are other tactics that can work, but I do not share the optimism of the women on the Government Benches about the progress that their parties have made.
	The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has something to be proud of in the representation of ethnic minorities on the Conservative Benches, which has changed enormously. I respect the Conservative party for that change. It did not happen through quotas or anything like that, but through a psychological change in the Conservative party, which I genuinely welcome.
	I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) for her work on the internship programme. We need to consider the fact that, as The Daily Telegraph put it, the main qualifications of people in this House are having gone to public school, having gone to Oxbridge and having been in a profession. Two of the three apply to me, although the representation of my profession, school teaching, has reduced. We need more progress on getting more people from manual occupations into the House.
	In that regard, I would say that Conservative Members tend to disrespect not only women-only shortlists but the trade union movement. The working-class members of the House have overwhelmingly been able to come here because of the work of the trade unions, and we need to respect the ability of the movement to bring people into politics. It will be one of the ways in which we can get change in the future.

Iain Stewart: I am very glad to have an opportunity to participate in the debate, and I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on helping to secure it. I support the motion, although I must express slight disappointment that it omits to mention one fact that we should celebrate, in which I declare an interest—that in this Parliament we have a record number of Members who are openly gay or lesbian.

Anne Begg: The remit that was given to the Speaker’s Conference did not specifically include that matter—it included “other connected purposes”, but interest in the issue was implied in everything that we did.

Iain Stewart: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady, and I acknowledge that she mentioned the matter in her speech.
	Relatively recently, declaring one’s homosexuality was completely taboo. It is only just over 25 years since the now Lord Smith publicly declared himself as the first
	out gay Member, although I think there were quite a number of Members of that persuasion before that who chose not to say so, especially on the Conservative Benches. It is significant that for the first time the majority of LGBT Members are on the Conservative Benches, which represents an enormous transformation for our party. It would not have happened even relatively recently.
	There is still sometimes a stigma, however, and some negative campaigning still goes on. Although all parties are signed up publicly and at leadership level, at constituency level there can sometimes be discrimination in subtle or unsubtle ways. I personally had no problems at all in my campaign in Milton Keynes. My opponents did not make any reference at all to my sexuality, and we had a completely fair and open contest. However, I know that in other constituencies where there were openly gay candidates, some fairly nasty comments were made. Other candidates would proclaim their family credentials, or there would be mentions on commuter trains that a particular candidate happened to be gay. Little things like that still represent a barrier, and we all have a job to do to ensure that such prejudice is stamped out.
	I agree with much that has been said in the debate about how we can widen the diversity of this place so that it is representative of the nation as a whole. One of the most powerful things that we can be is role models. That applies to people who are of a visible minority and those who represent diverse backgrounds, be they professionals, carers or people from modest council house backgrounds. People who might be inspired to go into politics need to be able to see that there are people like them in Parliament. That is one of the most powerful ways of getting more people involved in politics.
	We should not underestimate the role of individual Members in being ambassadors in our constituencies and encouraging people to engage in politics and come forward as candidates. I do a lot of work going around schools, both primary and secondary, to make pupils aware of politics and Parliament. Sometimes that can lead to some awkward questions in primary schools—I went to one school and the first question I was asked was, “Why are you here?” The supplementary was whether I had met Doctor Who. We have to be prepared for such eventualities. Engaging with schools, being visible as an MP and talking about the role of Parliament are incredibly important. I also organise a schools parliamentary debating competition each year and bring the finalists here to give them experience of Parliament.
	With my colleagues in the constituency, I have set up a community engagement group to make myself accessible to the different minority ethnic and religious groups, so that they feel that I have direct contact with them. Through that, they can be inspired to come forward as council or parliamentary candidates. There is a lot that individual MPs can do.

Jo Swinson: I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. He is absolutely right that MPs have a role and responsibility to encourage others to get involved in politics. Does he agree that asking a women whether she wants to be a parliamentary candidate is perhaps the sole occasion when if a woman says no, it does not always mean no? Sometimes people need quite a bit of nudging and encouragement before they feel they have the confidence to stand for election to this place.

Iain Stewart: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Another way we can do that is by bringing young people into our offices, whether that be for a short period of work experience or for a longer period as interns, to give them an insight into what we do.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman mentions parliamentary internships. Does he recognise that it is often difficult for people from working class backgrounds who do not have money or financial backing, or people who do not have parents who live in London, to be interns in Parliament? Would he support a campaign to ensure that there is sufficient financial support so that we can redress that balance?

Iain Stewart: I agree with that—and it leads me very neatly to my next point, which is on support for people who want to stand for Parliament.
	I was very lucky. I was a candidate for three general elections before I got in—[ Interruption. ] I got here in the end. I was lucky as I did not have a family to support, and I had a relatively well paid job and an enlightened employer who was willing to give me the time to do all the work a parliamentary candidate must do. Many people who would come forward as parliamentary candidates are inhibited because they do not have the financial wherewithal or the time because of their employment. That is an important aspect.
	I am running out of time, but let me highlight one thing that we should do and two that we should not. Parties should use professional head-hunters more to encourage people who might not otherwise think of a parliamentary career. I used to be a head-hunter, but no longer, so I do not have to declare an interest. Part of my role was to find people for commercial companies and the charity and public sectors to make boards more diverse, so that they reflected society as a whole. That should be extended to the political arena.
	Let me quickly put on record a couple of things that I do not think would be helpful. Although I accept that it should be for each political party to decide, I do not agree with quotas. I would hate to be here because I was elected from an LGBT-only shortlist. I would find that incredibly patronising. I got here on my own merits, because I competed with anyone else who wanted to go for the seat.
	In my last few seconds, I should sound a discordant note on reforming the hours of the House to make them more family friendly. Such reform is a red herring. If we want to tackle the hours of the House, we should look at the resources we have and the work that Members have to do, not at chopping and changing the order in which we do that work.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. I should point out that it is a coincidence that I am in the Chair for this debate, but I guess it could not be more appropriate.

Hazel Blears: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). I have rarely been in the Chamber when there has been
	such agreement and such good-humoured and good-tempered debate. It is very encouraging to see that, because we want to make progress.
	I was thinking about why it is important for Parliament to look like the communities we represent, which is something we have been talking about for what seems like decades. It is important in terms of fairness and justice, but, more and more, it is about good governance, competence and making the right decisions for the future of this country. I have always believed, including in every job I held before I came to Parliament, that if we get a good range of people with different life experiences around the table, we often make the right decisions.
	If we think about some of the decisions we make in relation to politics, education, social services, transport, jobs and the economy, it is clear that nothing can be more important to the lives of individuals, communities and families than political decisions. That is why I feel passionately about the fact that this House is not representative. It will take us a long time—decades, we have heard—to get where we want to be in terms of equality between men and women.
	We should talk about these issues, and the report provides an excellent anchor which will enable us to do the monitoring and the evaluation and really to push this agenda. However, we can talk all we like—what we need is practical action to make sure that we make progress on this agenda, and that is what I want to talk about.
	It is important that we recognise how far we have to go. Research at the last election showed that 10% of the 2010 intake of MPs came from just 13 schools, while 33% of all MPs were privately educated, compared to just 7% of the total population. All three party leaders were educated at Oxford or Cambridge, which is no fault of theirs. The Government contain a preponderance of people from a very similar background. I am not criticising the Government, because the same applies to all political parties, and we have seen that trend increase in recent years. That is one reason why people outside think Parliament is not full of people like them or a place where they can go and make their contribution.
	Another trend is making politics even more exclusive. During the past 20 years, one route to becoming an MP has become increasingly common. People come to work for a Member of Parliament in Westminster and perhaps go on to become a special adviser, before being selected for a safe seat in pretty short order. Of course, it took some of us 12 years to get to Parliament, which is something I have in common with the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South. After that, people might become Ministers, before ending up in the Cabinet. That means that a very narrow group of people make some of the most important decisions in this country.
	Three years ago, when I was in the Cabinet, I made a Hansard Society speech, in which I said I was very worried about the health of our democracy because of the growing trend I have described. In 1970, 3.4% of MPs said they had a background as a political adviser. In 2005, the figure had gone up to 12%. In 2010, it was 24%—a quarter of Members of Parliament, from all political parties, had come through this political route.
	One thing people do is to get internships in Westminster, but that is difficult for those who do not live in London or do not have parents to provide financial backing,
	because many internships are unpaid. Recommendations 15 and 16 of the Speaker’s Conference report say that there are several problems. Often, internships are not advertised, and people find out about them by word of mouth—it is about who you know. If internships are unpaid, that is difficult. It is also difficult for people to plan things, because internships are sporadic, and it is not clear when they will arise.
	I have therefore spent the past year with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—she is my hon. Friend in this context—and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) working on fundraising so that we can have a paid internship scheme in Parliament. We have the enthusiastic backing of Mr Speaker, who has been marvellous. The Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme has a small seed fund of £25,000 from the House of Commons Commission. We have now raised several hundred thousand pounds from organisations such as Morrisons supermarkets.

Amber Rudd: I am fortunate enough to have one of those interns in my office. He is a huge asset to the office, so I congratulate the right hon. Lady and the other hon. Members who have pulled this off, because it makes an incredibly important contribution to democracy in this place.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that comment. I am also grateful to hear of the excellent role model in her office. All the reports I get back are positive.
	As I said, we have had support from Morrisons supermarkets, which has been great. We have also had support from Clifford Chance lawyers, Prudential, AXA, Aviva insurance, Diageo and Sahara Group. We are constantly on the lookout for more people who would like to support us, so if any hon. Members are aware of possibilities, it would be helpful to hear about them. We have had help with housing from the Broxbourne housing association. It is virtually impossible for people to come and work here in Parliament if they do not have housing. We also have a firm of head-hunters, Ellwood and Atfield, helping with CV-building and interview techniques.
	The interns work with their MPs from Monday to Thursday, and the House authorities are providing a brilliant training programme for them on Fridays. They are working in education and outreach, and in statistics and research. They are learning how the House works, and how we get a Bill through the House, for example. It is a fantastic, life-changing experience for them.

Claire Perry: May I also add my congratulations to the right hon. Lady on working so tenaciously on that important scheme? Would it be possible for MPs to top up the scheme with any left-over Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority allowances? I have a bit of money left, but it is not enough to employ a full-time intern. However, I would like to contribute to the pool. Is that a possibility?

Hazel Blears: That is an excellent idea. The more innovative ideas on this agenda we have, the better. Money is tight, and Members of Parliament often have
	hardly enough money to run their offices, but if any small amounts are left over, it is a great idea to use them to enable us to create more placements.
	We have 10 interns this year. They started in November, and they are amazing people. They have been through a rigorous selection process. The Social Mobility Foundation is administering the scheme for us, and I want to place on record my thanks to David Johnston, its chief executive, and, in particular, to Katharine Sanders, who has gone above and beyond the call of duty in organising housing and passes, for example, and giving pastoral support and genuine personal support to the interns. Neeta Patel, who is working on the House training scheme, is also doing a marvellous job. All the interns will also get placements within the sponsor companies, which will give them commercial and business exposure. The Deputy Prime Minister has also agreed that they can have placements in Government Departments, which will give them experience of what it is like to see Ministers at work, as well as learning about the work of the House.
	I want to mention a few of the people on the scheme. They might well be watching the debate. Deborah has a background in retail—she has worked in Marks & Spencer—and she has worked in the charity sector. Abdul, another of our interns, was kidnapped at the age of eight in Liberia and forced to be a child soldier. He has since worked his way through university and now wants to make politics less brutal than the politics that he has experienced. James was an unemployed joiner in Glasgow, and he is now working with the Leader of the Opposition, so his life has changed quite dramatically as well.
	The scheme will change people’s lives. Some of those involved might want to work here full time; others might want to stand for office. It is a small scheme, but we are hoping to take on more people next year and the year after. I want to put it to the Minister that, as the Government have put the scheme into the social mobility strategy, they should have a responsibility to provide at least matching funding for it. The private sector contribution should continue—it is a great way of getting industry and commerce involved—but the Government need to stand up and get behind the scheme. I would very much welcome the Minister telling us today that it is their intention to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. We have exactly half an hour left for Back-Bench contributions, so, in the spirit of this consensual debate, will Members please remain conscious of the time?

Paul Maynard: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), and to the Speaker’s Panel as a whole, for putting the report together. I also note, as have others, that we have had a general election since it was published, and that that has given rise to a more diverse Parliament.
	I have listened carefully to the concerns about what might happen in 2015, but I have to say that I do not share them. I have tremendous respect for the Labour
	party as an institution, but I have never attended a Labour party meeting. I pray to God that I never will! Culturally, Labour has a very different attitude to the Conservative party, and I think it is fair to say that what works for Labour would probably not work for us. I love the Conservative party dearly, but I sometimes think that, in regard to candidate selection, there is a bit of push-me, pull-you involved. The more people try to tell us what to do, the more we rebel against them. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) made it clear that there was a sea change on this side of the House at the 2010 election, and I do not think that we will go backwards from that point. We are an evolutionary party. Changes occur gradually and then suddenly, whoosh, they start to occur very rapidly. I therefore have much more confidence than some hon. Members.
	I am reluctant to serve up cold maiden speeches from two years ago, so I will not do so, but I made the point that, although I did not want to dwell on my physical disability, my cerebral palsy or my epilepsy, I was likely to end up as a role model, whether I liked it or not. That has certainly been the case.
	Many people come to me saying that they want to get more involved in public life generally. I think this is a fundamental issue that has been missed in the debate so far, as it is not just about getting more diverse Members of this House. I was at a RADAR—Royal Association for Disability Rights—reception at Downing street, and I pay tribute to the work it does in this field. It told me that it wanted more leaders in public life as a whole, not just in this Chamber. It is vital that more diverse people act as counsellors, as these are the people who will be acting on selection panels to select our successors and our candidates. By broadening the political base, we are contributing to broadening the membership here.
	I echo what the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said about section 141 of the Mental Health Act. People might think that it is a rather abstruse measure or small print in legislation that needs to be tidied up at some point. However, I think it is fundamental, and the longer I think about it, the more strongly I become convinced of that viewpoint.
	I am one of two MPs who have announced in the Chamber that they have epilepsy. This is the first Parliament to include MPs who have been open about that. In the past, for reasons I have never quite understood, people were concerned not to talk about it. Because my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and I have been able to talk about it, we have seen a more rapid change in Government attitudes towards epilepsy. When I spoke about my own personal experiences in a Westminster Hall debate—not just about my epilepsy, but about speech therapy, cerebral palsy and all sorts of other issues on which my life gives me a unique perspective—I was surprised when other Members came up to me afterwards to say, “That’s a really useful contribution you made.” It struck me that what I said was utterly unexceptional and that I was just filling time in the parliamentary schedule, as it were, yet others were saying, “That was fantastic; that was wonderful.” It really makes a difference. If more people are able to talk about their experiences, it will improve policy. I think that echoes a point made by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears).

Seema Malhotra: The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about the contribution of diverse communities to public life as a whole. I was involved in running a cross-government diversity programme aimed at increasing the contributions from all communities to our public boards. Does he agree, however, that the focus has to stay on increasing diversity in Parliament? According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, our Parliament ranks joint 49th in the world when it comes to the number of women in Parliament. Should not all parties try to maintain our goal of making our Parliament more representative of Britain as a whole?

Paul Maynard: I thank the hon. Lady for that thoughtful contribution. It brings me back to what I said earlier—that it is for each party to find its own path towards the greater diversity that we all wish to see. Conservative Members will have their path; the hon. Lady and her party will no doubt have their path—but we all want to get to the same destination.
	My bigger concern is that in 10 years’ time, a Speaker’s Panel will be aiming not for a more representative Parliament, but for a Parliament of people who are not independently wealthy. My big fear is that what is really happening in politics at the moment is that people from ordinary backgrounds, like me, who have struggled to fund their own campaigns and to make ends meet are going to be excluded. I am not trying to say that I am poor by any means, in view of my salary, but I was a candidate who lost his job before the election and was not quite sure what to do. It was a genuine struggle to make ends meet. Thank God I had a credit card!
	We have a problem. There will increasingly come a time when unless candidates are of independent means, having made their money before they chose to enter politics, politics will not be a practical option for them—no matter what their family circumstances, no matter what their skills and no matter what minority or political party they seek to represent. We will have a much narrower democracy. That is why I welcome the internship scheme that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned. That is why, in Blackpool, I am trying desperately to explain to people why Parliament is relevant to them. It is also why I want more schools to come here. I am delighted that next week the first primary school from my constituency will be coming. It has been a battle, but at last the schools are starting to come down to Westminster. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), I go around schools trying to explain what I do, and I get more pleasure out of my politics every time someone comes up to me and says “I would never dream of voting for you—I cannot stand your party—but I like what you are doing as a human being.”
	I want the general public to see in their MPs people who they feel are just like them. That, to me, is the most crucial thing of all.

Chris Bryant: I slightly disagree with the last remark made by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). If we are honest, we are all a bit weird, are we not? After all, by definition, we wanted to come here. The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) is pointing at me. That is not
	very kind. I could point back, because I do not think that she is any less weird than I am.
	There are two fundamental principles. The first is that we should never judge people according to the colour of their skin, their gender, their sexuality, the school that they went to or the accent with which they speak. We should only ever judge people according to the strength of the convictions that they hold, the strength of their personal character, and whether they are able to see their convictions through in their lives. Surely the political system should embody that principle.
	The second principle is that, broadly speaking, Parliament should look like the country that it is meant to represent. There are several reasons for that, some of which have already been given today. First, it makes Parliament more effective and efficient, and we end up with better legislation. People can spot some of the holes in an idea that is being advanced because they know from their own lives whether it works or not, and how it affects them. The advent of women in Parliament undoubtedly meant that a whole raft of legislation was improved, because, frankly, men simply did not know what they were talking about. I can see hon. Ladies thinking that perhaps that happens all the time generally.
	Secondly, Parliament is more likely to embrace the people’s priorities. Rather that its being obsessed with a few things that might have interested a self-chosen elite, the views of the whole of society are expressed on its Order Paper and on the agenda for political action, and that must surely make it better.
	Thirdly—this has not been mentioned yet—it is all very well in politics to legislate, to pull a lever, but if the legislation has no effect out in the country because it has no public support, it will have no real chance of effecting change. A Parliament that looks more like the society that it is meant to represent is able to carry that society with it more effectively, and that means that can effect change more convincingly.
	We are, I think, nowhere near being able to meet either of those two principles. A number of Members have reminded us today that for many centuries no women were allowed to vote or to sit in here. Of the first two women who were allowed to sit in here, one was a countess and the other was a Lady—not that I have anything against Ladies, or against Dames, who seem to be multiplying on the Opposition Benches, or even against pantomime dames. Similarly, I believe that two of the first women to arrive in the House of Lords were the daughters of viceroys, and that one was married to a viceroy. The change needs to be far more substantial.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) for what he said about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Members. It is significant that we now have more out gay Members of Parliament than ever before. Indeed, sometimes when you go into the Strangers Bar you feel as though you are in Rupert street. It is virtually a gay bar now, and my husband sometimes worries about whether I should be allowed in there any more.
	Even the numbers that we have, however, do not come near matching the numbers in the country in terms of the percentage of the population. It is a great sadness to me that there are still only two out lesbians in
	Parliament, because two prejudices have been, as it were, tied together to form one. I pay tribute to those who have come out. That is difficult however, as not every gay person wants to be out, and I do not think they should have to be. I disagree with what the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said about role models. I hope to God nobody will ever think of me as a role model in relation to anything whatsoever at any time.
	[Interruption.] 
	The hon. Gentleman says that I should not worry about that, because nobody does. That is very generous of him. I was once described in the
	Daily Mail
	as an ex-gay vicar; I just want to point out that I am an ex-vicar, but my gayness is extant.
	Turning to disabilities, it is important to remember that not every disability is visible. There have been disabled MPs for many centuries, including Philip Snowden, Labour Chancellor in 1924, and the first Earl of Salisbury, who was profoundly disabled and a Secretary of State. The barriers for many people with disabilities are still great, however, such as in terms of this building itself and the way in which we do our business—the way we vote and so forth.
	As the Member of Parliament for the Rhondda, I would also like to point out that the biggest difficulties of all face working-class people who may want to enter the House. That is partly because of finances, as standing for Parliament is prohibitively expensive. Ironically, there is now also a problem at the other end of the scale, in that the pay and conditions in Parliament seem prohibitive to people in professional jobs who expect to earn £100,000, £120,000 or £150,000.
	This issue is not just about being representative; it is also about representing, and we should do that with courage and determination.

Nigel Evans: Five Members still wish to speak, and we have just over 15 minutes left, so according to the maths if each of them speaks for about three minutes everybody will get in—a bit of moral blackmail there.

Margot James: First, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) on securing the debate, and on the important contribution that she makes to this whole subject area.
	The main parties have each in their own way done a great deal to reduce discrimination in the candidate selection process. The difference that the Labour party made in 1997 was phenomenal. Although I do not agree with all-women shortlists, I certainly do not have a closed mind on the subject when I see what they have achieved for the party. The difference for Conservative women just between 2005 and 2010 has also been amazing. In 2004, when I was applying for a seat in Berkshire, I was given an interview and told in a letter that were I to make the final round, I would be welcome to bring my wife to drinks beforehand—and I do not think that its authors were so forward-looking that they were taking into account future gay marriage legislation.
	One of the main reasons why still not enough MPs are women or from minority groups is that they do not come forward for selection in adequate numbers. There are many reasons for that, several of which have already
	been mentioned. I would add that the personal, and sometimes sexist, coverage of women MPs in the media is also a factor, as is the general level of aggression in some aspects of political debate. Moreover, the opprobrium that is heaped on MPs who make a misjudgement or get something wrong is often out of all proportion to the seriousness of the supposed offence. We have already seen that this year in respect of one hon. Member. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is another factor, but I will not dwell on that.
	Those factors put many people off entering public life, but they put off a higher proportion of women and people from minority groups. There are certain things we can do, and some of them are in the gift of the Prime Minister. I was delighted to hear that he is intent on having one third of his Government made up of women by the end of this Parliament. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has drawn attention to some of the many Departments that have no woman Minister. It is breathtaking that not one of the 15 Ministers in the Departments of State that face the outside world—the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development—is female. What message does that give to women who are struggling for the most basic human rights in the developing world?
	Returning to the broader issue of diversity, I want to place on the record my gratitude to the Prime Minister and the previous but one Prime Minister for the amazing progress made since the turn of the century in the area of gay equality. The number of openly gay MPs in my party increased sixfold or sevenfold, as we have heard, at the last election. That is testimony to the legislative changes introduced by the Labour Government under Tony Blair, and to the cultural change in the Conservative party brought about by the present Prime Minister. I would not be standing here today without them, and I am deeply grateful to both of them, and to others such as the chairman of the Stourbridge Conservative association when I was selected, Councillor Liz Walker. These people have made possible a journey that I embarked on at the age of 16, and I am deeply grateful.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. I am introducing a three-minute limit, just to focus people’s attention.

David Nuttall: I believe that when political parties are selecting candidates, what most people want to see is that they are selected purely on merit and not according to a given particular characteristic, be it gender, faith, disability or what sort of relationship they may be involved in. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to apply to become a candidate, and by all means, we should be encouraging as many people as possible to come forward for selection. However, personally, I do not want to see the imposition of quotas, which in reality mean fixing the result of the selection process before it has even begun. By their very nature, the use of all-women shortlists, for example, discriminates not just against men as a whole, but, by extension, against men belonging to a group under-represented in the House, such as those from a working-class background.
	It is entirely wrong that those who seek to remedy what they perceive as discrimination against women should adopt as their solution the practice of all-women shortlists, which discriminate against men. We should oppose all forms of discrimination and not seek to legitimise it, as happened with the passing of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002.
	Good candidates will always rise to the top. As has been mentioned, Margaret Thatcher became leader of our party, and Prime Minister, without the need for any special help. As she said in her book “Statecraft”,
	“the use of quotas applying to the appointment or promotion of individuals because of their collective identity or background is an unacceptable incursion on freedom, however well-intentioned the motives. Nor does it help those who are its intended beneficiaries. Individuals from these groups may well feel patronised; their professional reputations in posts which they would anyway have attained on merit are diminished, because they are thought to occupy them by special privilege; and they are likely to become the targets of resentment and possibly even ill-treatment.”
	The report of the Speaker’s Conference stated:
	“at present few people think that members of Parliament understand, or share the life experience of the people they represent (their constituents). Building and restoring public faith in Parliament is of crucial importance to the future of our democracy.”
	One certain way to alienate voters up and down the country is to put forward as candidates to be their potential representatives people chosen on the basis not of merit but of their gender.

Mary Macleod: I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and the Speaker’s Conference for reminding us of the importance of this issue by holding this debate. The comments made by hon. Members from across the Chamber have shown that this is about improving our democracy and recognising the contribution that a more diverse group of Members can make to this Chamber.
	I want the focus of my few remarks to be the issue of women. The issue of female representation arises not only in Parliament, but in the boardroom, where the level of representation is just 15%. In addition, the level of female entrepreneurship is less than half of that for men, so there is still a lot of work to be done. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), I watched the scenes from “The Iron Lady” this week and I can tell the House that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, role models are important. The first female British Prime Minister inspired me and many others to get into Parliament, as she showed that women can believe in themselves and achieve the highest office. We have made a difference, because whereas female MPs made up 3% of this House when Margaret Thatcher came to power, the level is now 22%. So some progress has been made and, although there is room for improvement, a third of coalition female MPs have a Government role, including Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Defence has been mentioned, and we certainly have a great PPS in defence with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry).
	In the world rankings in this area, the UK comes 49th in the national Parliaments list, below Cuba, Uganda, Afghanistan and Iraq. That puts things in perspective
	and it is why I set up the all-party group on women in Parliament. It is important that this House reflects the vitality and modernity of our democratic processes.

Margot James: On the international point that my hon. Friend makes, does she accept that in some of those countries a lot of the women who fill those quota places are, sadly, place women and often they are not there on any particular merit other than their connections to—mostly male—members of the establishment in those countries?

Mary Macleod: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is certainly more work to be done in communicating with Governments elsewhere about what else they can do to increase female representation in their Parliaments, and not necessarily by using things such as women-only shortlists, with which I do not agree.
	I wish to make a point about the importance of media coverage in politics, a subject that has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye and for Stourbridge (Margot James), as it does play a part in the perception of women. How can we increase the number of women in Parliament? We have to start with people who are at a very young age; it is about teaching politics in school, and engaging these young people in community projects and on local issues. We need to show them that they can make a difference, even as a young person, to their local communities. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South talked about the importance of making a continuous rather than a one-off effort. The Conservative party is maintaining that approach by continuing the encouragement and support of female candidates, stretching out and finding new and great people who can represent our country in the future.
	In conclusion, we might in future need to examine the challenge of the “gang”, hostile culture in the Chamber. I sometimes think that it would not be accepted in the classroom or the boardroom, so why is it accepted in the Chamber? Women are a growing force in employment and in public life, and it is incumbent on each of us to encourage and inspire the next generation of people in this country, from all backgrounds, to shape the future of our country.

Penny Mordaunt: I recognise the merits of a diverse Parliament, both in the quality of what we do and in the perceived and actual relevance to the country of our work. However, I do not think that being middle aged, middle class, white or male are disqualifications for this job, any more than they are recommendations. I am not in favour of all-women shortlists or quotas. If I were, perhaps I would be asking today why we should just stop at measures focused on would-be candidates and why we should not just ask half the white male MPs to vacate their seats at the next election. I think that would strike most people as unfair, but it is no less unfair than a measure that seeks to remove prejudice on the basis of skin colour or gender by denying a generation of candidates their chance because of the particular colour of their skin or their particular gender. The only sort of under-representation about which we should be concerned is the under-representation of talent.
	As we have heard, the three things that principally stand in the way of the talented minority candidate are money, prejudice and process. For example, a friend of mine who was a would-be candidate was lucky enough to get through to the latter rounds of several constituency selection panels, but unfortunately for her they were all on the same weekend. She had to spend in excess of £700 to transport herself and her husband around those meetings and on child care, so Members can imagine her despair when she received the ironic feedback that she had not been selected and that the only blemish on her impeccable score sheet was that her husband had not bought a raffle ticket. Even worse than such petty reasoning is open prejudice. The way to tackle any instinctive opposition to female, BME or other candidates is not to deny local associations their liberty to chose or to constrain them to pass over a generation of talented men in the name of all-women shortlists, but to bring the process out from the dusty backrooms and into the light of day. There should be much more training, advice and education for selection panels on how to score candidates against one another properly.
	Parties must also recognise that candidates cannot fund themselves to the nth degree. Travel and other reasonable costs incurred by candidates seeking a seat should be paid from central party coffers. That would not only encourage the less well-off to come forward but focus the minds of those who decide who makes it on to the approved lists. In tackling that financial burden, the central parties should also assume responsibility for co-ordinating selection meetings. Local associations should be able to choose their agendas, but they should have to fit in with a national grid on which all associations should block their selection meetings. For example, a prospective candidate with a caring responsibility who was therefore tied to a particular geographical location might be unable to take up the handful of opportunities to be selected for such a seat because all the selection meetings had been scheduled on the same morning. A bit of basic organisation would substantially increase that person’s opportunities.

Nigel Evans: I call Simon Hughes, who has until 5.33 pm.

Simon Hughes: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make what might be my shortest speech for a long time, which might be a consolation to many people.
	A friend of mine called David Buxton, who stood to be a councillor, was the most profoundly deaf person ever to become a councillor in England. He taught me a long time ago how difficult it is for someone who comes from a disadvantaged position to be treated equally and given equal opportunities. The debate has shown phenomenal consensus in Parliament and between the political parties about where we go next. The messages are clear: a more diverse Parliament gives us better decisions, better debates, better information, better credibility and more interest in Parliament. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), who made that point so effectively.
	We need to send out an appeal: in this House we need more young people, more old people, more women,
	more people from the black and minority ethnic communities, more people with disabilities, more people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender and more people from the faith minority communities. We also need more people from working class backgrounds, council house backgrounds and lower income groups. We need to go on with that agenda until half the House is made up of women and until we reflect fully the ethnic minorities of our country.
	I promised that I would sit down at 5.33 pm, so let me end with the following point. Above all, we must ensure that every one of our political parties has a membership base in its constituencies that reflects the constituency and a councillor base that reflects the constituency, too. If we have a proper base, we can have a Parliament, chosen from the people, of whom we can be proud in the years to come.

Kate Green: It is a pleasure to respond to a debate in which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said, has been characterised by so much harmony. Across the board, beginning with the welcome opening speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), we have seen a recognition that a Parliament that is unrepresentative of the make-up of the country is, by definition, a failure of democracy. Although we can all be proud of the progress that has been made, no one can doubt that we still have a great deal to do.
	Important points have been raised by hon. Members across the House about party processes and procedures for encouraging, preparing and selecting parliamentary candidates. Important points have also been made about the experiences of Members and their staff in carrying out their parliamentary duties and about the barriers that might need to be dismantled. I hope to touch on a number of the comments on those areas, which were addressed in the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference. The recommendations covered party practices and processes to promote diversity among candidates, issues to do with meeting the costs of candidacy, on which a number of hon. Members have rightly commented, and ways of working in Parliament.
	Let me start by picking up on comments about the processes to encourage more women to apply to become parliamentary candidates on the all-women shortlists. I am proud that Labour introduced all-women shortlists and I am proud of the significant improvement in female representation that we achieved as a result. I am also pleased that we took the opportunity in the Equality Act 2010, at the end of the previous Labour Government, to extend to 2030 the possibility of parties’ using all-women shortlists. However, I remind hon. Members that that is a choice for political parties and there is no sense of imposing on any party the use of all-women shortlists within the political process. None the less, it is undoubtedly a tactic that has produced a significantly improved outcome not just for my party but in setting the tone that other parties have been able to pick up and follow in seeking to meet the success we have had.
	I am proud to have been selected on an all-women shortlist for my constituency. I have never felt that I needed to apologise for that or that it suggests I am in
	some way less capable of doing the job than any other parliamentary colleague. Indeed, I strongly suspect that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, few Members would be able to identify which women had been selected through an all-women shortlist once they were in this place.
	There has been progress in other areas, as well as on improving the diversity of the membership of this House, and I pay tribute to the House administration for the improvement we have seen there. I particularly welcome the establishment of the workplace equality networks, which are proving effective and successful for parliamentary staff and visitors to Parliament. Other hon. Members have commented on the work of the Select Committee on Procedure in consulting on parliamentary hours and the parliamentary calendar, and I was very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) pointed out that even the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has done its best to be more supportive. I pay tribute to a number of hon. Members in that regard, including the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who has done a great deal to encourage IPSA to take a wide-ranging and imaginative view of the family responsibilities that hon. Members face.
	There has been progress, but there is much that we need to do to offer to MPs and their staff a working environment that bears greater resemblance to the normal working world outside Parliament. I am often told, and by no means just by those who have spent many years in the House, that that is not an apt comparison, but I strongly beg to differ. An unhealthy, dysfunctional and non-family-friendly working environment is not good for hon. Members or for our effectiveness and it is simply off-putting to many people outside Parliament who might otherwise aspire to join us. It provides a poor exemplar of good, modern behaviours and practices in employment more generally and I am very pleased that the Speaker’s Conference took notice of that specific issue.
	I want to spend a couple of minutes discussing the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference that deal with stimulating and supporting individuals from a diversity of backgrounds to come forward and be successful in seeking selection—a subject that a number of hon. Members have touched on this afternoon. The motion is right to highlight concerns about the impact of the Government’s planned changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries. I hope that all political parties and Parliament itself will take the opportunity to conduct an audit of the impact of that change so that we can be informed collectively about the steps that might need to be taken in light of those changes to secure and promote the greater diversity that might be at risk as a result.
	Even if that is not a worry, the continuing under-representation in Parliament of minority and protected groups must concern us. As many parliamentary colleagues have said this afternoon, the legitimacy and effectiveness of Parliament depend on its diversity and representativeness. Political parties, parliamentarians and Parliament itself must therefore pay attention to how we attract future parliamentary candidates. As others have said, for many people in our country, the idea that they could ever enter Parliament is simply unimaginable. The consequence is that we have a Parliament that still looks too much like a place for a narrowly drawn and privileged elite.
	That is the case for all political parties. It is not to say that we lack empathy or that we are not doing a good job, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South said in her opening remarks, we all bring our life experiences to Parliament. Perhaps the most eloquent contribution we heard this afternoon, which highlighted why that is important in the way we act as legislators, was the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). He showed us powerfully how important it is that a diverse range of life experiences is reflected in the House. If those life experiences are not adequately reflected, if they are too limited, we shall inevitably have less insight. We risk making poor and poorly informed decisions, and we shall lack credibility as legislators. I hope that careful note will be taken of the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference which will help to make entry to Parliament a real option for people from a much greater diversity of background.
	In that context, I endorse the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough about education and citizenship. There is an opportunity to do more in schools and, as the Speaker’s Conference recognised, with social and community groups. Like others, I suggest that it is important that we get in early and work more proactively with young people. In that regard, I am pleased that we continue to welcome the Youth Parliament to the Chamber—I do not think that has been mentioned this afternoon. It is a great opportunity to open up to more young people the concept of representative democracy and the possibility of being part of this Parliament. I hope we continue to do that in the years to come.
	I endorse the points alluded to by both the hon. Members for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) about what is going on in other legislatures and Chambers. What we do in Westminster should serve as a model for local government, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, for the election of police and crime commissioners, for our MEPs and, for that matter, for the Youth Parliament. Indeed, as the hon. Lady pointed out, in some cases they are already outstripping us, which is not something we should be proud of.
	I want finally to say a couple of things about money. Hon. and right hon. Members are right to refer to the substantial barrier it presents to people coming into this place from not just low but typical incomes. Like other Members, I very much welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles in establishing the parliamentary placements initiative; it is a great opportunity for us to bring more people from low-income backgrounds into Parliament at an early age.
	There are many other financial obstacles to be faced by those seeking selection, so I hope that in her response the Minister may be able to update us on the Government’s intentions in relation to the recommendation that a consultation should take place during this Parliament on the proposal for the introduction of a scheme enabling local parties to apply for funding linked to their receipts from membership subscriptions. As others have said, I also hope she will tell us what progress is being made on looking at the possibility of a public fund to support disabled Members.
	This has been an important debate. We all bear responsibility for making progress on the issue. Others have commented on the old saying that what gets measured gets done, which is why the publication of diversity data, as highlighted in the motion, is important. Perhaps we could add that what gets debated gets done, so I am very pleased that we have been able to hold this debate and I pay tribute to every hon. Member who has taken part.

Lynne Featherstone: We have had a fulfilling debate. It makes one proud of the House when all the contributions—every one, across the Floor—work in the same direction. We might work in different ways, but there is not a single person who does not believe that we would be much better off if we were more reflective of society and the people we represent. I assure the House that equality is at the heart of the Government’s agenda, and it is central to building a strong economy and a fair society. If we are to achieve that, as so many have said, it is vital that our democracy is representative of the people we serve.
	Although this might be the most diverse Parliament ever, it is clear that there is some way to go. That is why the Government welcome the report of the Speaker’s Conference and support the broad thrust of its recommendations. We have, to date, implemented the provisions in the Equality Act 2010, which enabled political parties to use positive action, should they wish. As was pointed out, it is not mandatory but optional, because clearly there are different views in different parts of the House. The measure is there to be used by those who want to make a difference in that way, to encourage participation in politics among under-represented groups. Obviously, within that, all prospective candidates should be considered on their individual merits. I add that because, whatever the selection, it is quite obvious that one should select the person with the most talent, but if the group of people in question is not diverse, by definition it is not the best group to choose from.
	We have extended to 2030 the ability to use women-only shortlists, a point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I sat here this afternoon and listened to points being batted to and fro. Members on opposite sides of the Chamber say, “We are fantastic, but they are dreadful.” That is the whole point. Political parties can choose to become more representative in their own way. I congratulate Labour on its all-women shortlists. That caused a step-change that was admirable. I congratulate the Conservative party on its methodology, which has certainly delivered results. Had we won what we thought were the winnable seats in which we had women candidates, I would be able to congratulate the Liberal Democrats, but we did not win them.
	Following last year’s consultation, we have announced our plans to support disabled people in accessing elected office, and I hope shortly to announce a detailed plan of action, including new funding. I shall go into that in a moment. We have made a start, but there is much more to do.
	Three areas are crucial to achieving equality: young people, political parties and the public sector. Hon. Members mentioned young people, and those in all parts of the House are doing a good job, going into
	schools to spread the message that politics is life and that we are human beings, which is a good start.
	[Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is not sure about that. He says that we are weird. I think that we are all human, and it would be a good thing for the House if we showed a bit more of our human side and a bit less of our automated side. I shall now go into automated-speak.
	Engaging young people is central to increasing diversity in Westminster. Without that, we miss a vital opportunity to change the political landscape. We have to look to the future and inspire the younger generation. We hear people complaining that young people are not engaged, but I do not think that is true. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) was present the evening I spoke to the girl guides. The 2011 results of Girlguiding UK’s annual survey of girls’ attitudes showed that they are perfectly aware of global events. They care about them hugely; they are passionate about them. However, the survey highlighted that they often feel powerless to be part of world events. Representation here is part of empowering those girls to feel that they have a voice and a place. As I said to them that night, “Be a person. Speak up for yourself, in politics or out of politics. That is what counts.” We must encourage today’s young people, girls and boys, to have aspirations and confidence in themselves.
	There must be leadership by political parties. More than ever, political parties need to reach out to young people, engaging their interest and encouraging them. There are simple things that we can do to achieve that. I note what has been said about internships, which are fantastic. I shall go on to praise the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). A recent report by the Institute for Government found that one of the factors that helped to encourage women and other under-represented groups to stand for election was simply being asked to stand.
	That was my own experience. I wandered late into politics. I am a sort of accidental politician. Somebody said to me, “You should think about standing for Parliament.” I said, “Who, me?” That sparked a thought and, gradually, a belief that perhaps I could do that, although I did not go to university, do not have a degree and do not have “the right background”. Somebody had a belief in me; they saw something and said, “You can do this”.
	The report also pointed to the need to make the selection process more transparent and make it easier for people to understand how to become an MP. My officials will hold a round-table meeting with representatives of the political parties later this month to see how best to do this, and that will include a voluntary approach whereby the parties would publish data on the diversity of their candidate selection. I know that the Liberal Democrats do that, but I think that the parties need to work together on this. Someone called for central control and command, but I am not sure that we need that and think that ultimately the parties must move forward first.
	Lastly—I want to get on to responding to Members—the Speaker’s Conference rightly pointed to the importance of leadership by public sector organisations. Public bodies must lead by example, which is why we now
	require them, through the public sector equality duty, to publish equality data every year and set equality objectives.
	There have been many thoughtful contributions, not all of which I will be able to respond to, but first and foremost I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), who gave a tour de force on this agenda. I am pleased to be able to pay tribute to the work she has done for the Speaker’s Conference and in her own way, fighting for things and being seen in a wheelchair in Parliament. Although Members have said that they do not want to represent what they are or are seen to be physically, those role models are nevertheless vital. When a person sees that someone who looks like them can do it, that changes the world.
	The hon. Lady asked about diversity data. The Government support the principle that parties should publish diversity data but believe that in the first instance we should pursue a voluntary approach. As I have said, we are holding a round-table meeting on that.
	The recommendations of the access to elected office for disabled people strategy—a number of Members referred to access to public office—are being taken forward. The public consultation ran from February to May 2011 and sought views on a range of policy proposals. The Government published their response on 13 September, setting out our intention to take forward five of the six proposals. We are currently working with political, disability and other stakeholders to take forward the proposals, which include: the establishment of a dedicated fund to help individual candidates with disability-related costs; new training and development opportunities; proposals to raise awareness; and work with political parties to share good practice on disability and explain legal obligations. We will make a further announcement relatively soon on how the funding is to be distributed.
	A number of Members referred to the boundary review and the impact it will have. The motivation behind the boundary changes was to create fairness in numbers, because there is a huge differential between some constituencies. For example, Arfon in north Wales has around 40,000 voters, but East Ham has more than 90,000. It would be a terrible irony if, in our efforts to introduce fairness in what our votes are worth, we suddenly found that we were being unfair in other respects and that our diversity representation was getting worse as a result. I simply say for the record that I would expect all political parties to look at this most carefully when the dust settles on exactly where the boundaries will be, look at the impact in their own parties, take note and, more importantly, take action to ensure that we do not, ironically, increase unfairness in that area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who also gave a tour de force on this agenda, referred to section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The Government support the proposal in principle and on 3 February 2010 announced our intention to repeal that section, which sets out the process by which an MP’s seat is vacated if they have a mental health condition and are authorised to be detained under mental health legislation for six months or more. The Government supported Lord Stevenson of Coddenham’s private Member’s Bill, the Mental Health
	(Discrimination) Bill, at its Second Reading on 25 November, but we wish to retain the option to introduce a Government amendment at a later stage. Given the timing of the Bill’s Second Reading, it will be extremely difficult for the measure to gain Royal Assent in this Session, so if necessary Lord Stevenson intends to reintroduce his Bill in the next Session, in which case the Government will be pleased to support it.
	The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) is no longer in her place, but she raised some really important points, with which I agree wholeheartedly. She said that women—my attention is on women at this point—need to get their hands on levers, on budgets and on power in order to deliver real change, and she highlighted the lack of women Ministers in the Government ranks. I can say without declaring an interest, as I am already in the Government, that such change would only be of benefit—and is promised by the end of this Parliament. I am sure that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are listening very carefully and taking note as I speak.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) referred to the stigma that still exists subliminally in political parties: we say things, but then push comes to shove. In political parties, probably across the board, we will have all encountered the nod, the nudge, the wink—that sort of thing—and we all must work to eliminate it.
	I pay tribute to and congratulate the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) on her internship scheme, which is hugely important. Recently, the Deputy Prime Minister called for all internships to be advertised to stop the “who you know” culture, because some have been about not just access, which is absolutely right, but the idea that if one knows somebody one will be given an internship, and it is vital that internships are open to all.
	In my constituency office, I have another way. I take part-time interns, some even for one day a week, so that they are able to work the rest of the week and, therefore, support themselves, because not everyone has parents who can help them, and not everyone is from London.

Hazel Blears: rose —

Lynne Featherstone: I do not know whether the right hon. Lady wants to intervene, but I have only one minute left—unless it is something new.

Hazel Blears: I am not looking for any praise at all for the scheme; I am looking for a Government commitment. They praised the scheme in their social mobility strategy, so I should like the Minister to say whether that will result in the Government providing some support.

Lynne Featherstone: I apologise. I forgot about the funding, which was the right hon. Lady’s essential point. I am sure that she is being listened to, and I shall find out whether there is any such intention in the Government. I have no inkling at the moment, because it has not been discussed—with me at least.
	We obviously have Government internships, too, with which we are progressing. The right hon. Member for
	Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) asked how well we are doing with our equality agenda in Departments, and that is a very important aspect. Last night I was at the Stonewall employer of the year ceremony, and—
	[
	Interruption
	]
	—
	I cannot talk any more, but—the Home Office came second, and was first last year.

Anne Begg: The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) summed the issue up extremely well when she said that what we in this House should be concerned about is the under-representation of talent. For decades, talented individuals who would have made excellent MPs have not made it into the House, either because it was never suggested that they would be very good at it, or because the barriers were too high for them to overcome. We do not get the best person for the job if the best person does not even apply for it.
	It has therefore been important today to reflect on the fact that political parties have to have a mechanism to encourage people of talent to come forward and make it into this place. For the Labour party, all-women shortlists have certainly worked and created a critical mass; for the Conservatives, it has been their A list, their support and mentoring and the changing of party members’ attitudes. But the mechanisms have been put in place.
	The Speaker’s Conference identified that the case for widening representation rests on three principles: justice, effectiveness and legitimacy. We have to keep up the pressure. Without that pressure, we could start to slip backwards. That is why I hope that the House will support the motion.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the fact that there are now more women hon. Members and hon. Members from Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities than in any previous Parliament; notes that the need for greater diversity in the House has been accepted by the leadership of the three main political parties at Westminster; is concerned that increased competition for seats at the 2015 General Election may leave under-represented groups more poorly represented among approved candidates, and in the House thereafter, unless mechanisms are employed to tackle continuing inequalities during candidate selection; and calls on the Government and political parties to fulfil commitments made in response to the Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) in 2010, including the commitment to secure the publication by all parties of diversity data on candidate selections.

Business without Debate

Business of the House (16 January)

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Monday 16 January paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day.—(Jeremy Wright.)

Draft House of Lords Reform Bill (Joint committee)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 20 December and that, notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 23 June, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill that it should report on the draft Bill by 27 March 2012.—(Jeremy Wright.)

ACADEMY STATUS (HARINGEY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—( Jeremy Wright .)

David Lammy: I am grateful for the chance to debate the decision of Ministers to force four primary schools in Haringey to become academies, against the wishes of their governors, parents and teachers. Those schools are Downhills primary school and Coleraine Park primary school in Tottenham, and Nightingale primary school and Noel Park primary school in Wood Green. I am sad to see the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) leaving the Chamber as I begin this speech.
	Although this debate concerns those four schools primarily, Ministers have suggested that hundreds of schools around the country could be forced to convert into academies. Schools in Birmingham, Bristol, Durham, Essex, Kent, Lancashire, Leeds and Northamptonshire could be next in the firing line, so this debate is of interest to Members throughout the country and on both sides of the House.
	I will deal with three issues. The first is the absolute importance of standards in primary schools and the other interventions that could be made to drive up standards. The second is the fundamentally undemocratic way in which Ministers are taking this decision. The third is the need for collaboration, not confrontation in ensuring that our pupils achieve the maximum that they are capable of achieving.
	My remarks will focus on Downhills primary school, but they apply just as strongly to the other three schools in Haringey that are affected by the Minister’s decision. I have known Downhills since 1975, when I first stepped through its doors as a pupil. The school has been serving the local community for more than 100 years. Last week, I received a letter from a gentleman who attended Downhills during the second world war, which stated:
	“I have memories of an excellent education—I was even appointed School Captain. My primary education at Downhills led to later success. I was not alone there. We were encouraged to succeed. I hope your current efforts to secure the appropriate status for Downhills Primary School will be successful and that they will help present and future pupils to have a brighter future.”
	It is not just me who shares that history and is angered by the Minister’s decision.
	I want to make it clear that I do not oppose academies. I support academies that work with parents and the local community to raise standards. I am a pluralist in education. I supported the academies programme of the previous Government, of whom I was a member. However, just as there are good community schools and poor community schools, so there are good academies and poor academies. The Government’s attempt to force schools in Haringey to become academies assumes that academies are the only way to raise standards and that academies always raise standards. Neither is true. The Government’s actions also ignore the fact that schools perform best when central and local government work in collaboration with parents, teachers and governors, rather than against them.
	I will start by focusing on school standards. The Secretary of State has branded the parents, governors and teachers at these schools as
	“ideologues who are happy with failure”
	and “enemies of promise”. However, not one of us is an apologist for poor results. That is why Downhills is under a notice to improve, and we support that. It is worth looking at the Downhills governing body—the very people who are supposed to be opposing this action for ideological reasons. It covers the whole range of the community. It has a solicitor, a former nurse, a senior civil servant and a hedge fund manager, all working for free to make the school better. Is that not what the big society is all about? Should not those people be praised rather than removed? How will getting rid of all of them and imposing a sponsor make the school and society better?
	The governing body and I know that if a pupil leaves primary school without the basics, they will struggle at secondary school and potentially struggle throughout their life. We had riots this summer that reminded us of that fact. We are at the coal face, and we do not need to be lectured by those who, frankly, have limited experience of the inner-city context.
	We believe in supporting a school to improve, and that is exactly what we are doing at Downhills. Results from 2011 show that the school is above the Government’s floor target for English and maths. Some 64% of pupils achieved the national average level in both subjects, and among pupils who had been in the school for at least four years, 75% did so. More than 90% of parents are happy with the school. We are not resting on our laurels with that 64% figure, because it still leaves too many pupils who do not succeed, but the argument that the enormous upheaval being foisted on the community is justified by the results just does not hold water. Downhills is above the national primary school average. Will its improvements continue if the school is forced through the process of becoming an academy over the next few months, against the wishes of the entire community?

Jeremy Corbyn: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for how he is representing his constituents in support of Downhills school, which is an improving school. Like many in the country, it is improving because of investment, people’s determination, parents’ support and teachers. Does he have any idea why Downhills and a couple of other schools in Haringey have been selected for this treatment, when other schools have not? Is there a process by which the Department for Education is threatening all primary schools in the whole country?

David Lammy: My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is not clear why, perhaps apart from political reasons, Haringey has been selected. I certainly want to know whether the Department intends to go after the 2,500 primary schools in the country whose performance is lower than that of Downhills. I will come on to that point.
	At Downhills, 72% of pupils have English as a second language and more than 40 languages are spoken by the pupils. More than 45% of pupils are eligible for a free school meal—I mention that fact because I, too, was eligible for free school meals when I attended Downhills—and the number of families living in deprivation is
	double the national average. Enormous numbers of pupils join and leave the school during the school year, and it has one of the largest Roma populations in the country.
	I raise those points not to make excuses for failure, but to point out that pupils from deprived backgrounds at Downhills actually do better than the national average. Speaking another language at home or being from a deprived background is absolutely not taken as an excuse for failure at the school, whatever the Secretary of State might think. We can just look at the results—they speak loud and clear.
	Looking further into the figures, the capricious choice of Downhills becomes even more dubious. In 2011, 2,594 primary schools obtained worse results than Downhills primary. In the Secretary of State’s own education authority of Surrey, 26 primary schools obtained the same results or worse. In West Sussex, the area of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), who will respond to this debate, another 26 schools obtained the same results as Downhills or worse. Does he propose—I hope he will answer this question—to force those 2,594 schools to become academies as well? If his answer is yes, we really will be seeing a revolution in education in this country, and it will certainly get him on the 10 o’clock news. Is that about standards, or is it about politics and ideology? I want to hear the Minister’s answer when he stands up. When we look at the results, we find that London schools do much better than schools in other parts of the country. That is not complacency; I am simply pointing out that if the Minister’s choice of schools to target was based purely on results, he would not be targeting schools in London to begin with.
	If the Minister were motivated solely by results, would he not have waited for the second Ofsted inspection into Downhills school, which will show how the school has raised its game since the notice to improve? I remind him that when Ofsted made its monitoring visit in September, it said the school was on the road to improvement and praised the senior management team, including the head. Why is the Minister casting Ofsted aside and saying from Whitehall, “I know best”? Can he explain that new approach to localism, which has emerged in the past few weeks?
	The Minister must ask himself whether now is an appropriate time to cause upheaval in the Tottenham schools system following the riots of last September. I urge him to demonstrate the sensitivity that is required after a constituency has experienced what mine experienced—it was witnessed on TV screens not just by hon. Members, but by the rest of the country and internationally.
	By focusing only on forced academies, the Government have ignored all the other tried and tested ways in which standards in primary schools can be raised. A relentless focus on teaching and learning, booster lessons, a renewed management team, federation with thriving schools and new buildings all contribute to improving standards in education. All could be tried, and many have been or are being tried, but they have all been cast aside and ignored by the Government.
	At Downhills, six teachers have been replaced in a year. A new head was brought into Coleraine Park school to turn the school around 18 months ago, and a
	new deputy head was brought in from an outstanding school just a few miles up the road. The results show that those changes are working. The trouble is that the Government are ignoring the results and focusing only on forced academies. That approach ignores the fact that, just as there are good community schools and bad community schools, so there are good academies and bad academies. The last results for Marlowe academy in Ramsgate were even described by the former principal as “disappointing”. Mossbourne academy in Hackney is rightly held up by all as a vision of what can be done, but that goes to show that a one-size-fits-all approach to reforms in struggling schools does not work.
	It is clear that those reforms need funding. I understand that times are tough, so this is not solely about spending, but it is right to put on record that the Government set up a free school in Muswell Hill last year that will cost the taxpayer £6 million. It has 30 pupils at the moment. For the Minister’s geography, Muswell Hill is a few miles up the road in the London borough of Haringey. The Secretary of State could have given £100,000 to every Haringey primary school and reached 30,000 children rather than 30. Given Muswell Hill’s demographic, the Minister will understand why my constituents are a little concerned and alarmed.
	The Minister has remarked that Haringey’s primary schools are the worst in inner London. They are. So why does he not fund them at inner-London rates? Haringey has the same challenges as Islington, Camden and Hackney, but receives £1,500 less per pupil in schools than those areas. For Downhills, that underfunding is worth about £600,000 a year, which is equivalent to one extra teacher in every classroom. Where would Downhills primary’s standards be if we had the money in the London borough of Haringey that we deserve? The Minister’s account in the newspapers this week suggested that mine is an inner-city constituency, but one that has suburban funding. I hope he will say something about what he will do to redress that balance so that we can achieve the improvement we want.
	The reforms are working, and the results are improving. Results and standards are vital, and although the Government might ignore the results, we will not. We say loud and clear that standards matter, and we do not tolerate poor results or low aspirations—I certainly do not, and there is no record of my doing anything of the sort in this House over my years as the MP for the area. Results have not been good enough, but they are improving, and we will be relentless—working, I hope, with the Department—in seeking to improve them further. People want the best for their children. This mixed community, which is represented by the governing body, but also by the wider deprivation demographics I mentioned, wants the best results for all its young people.
	I am also concerned about the undemocratic way in which these things have been done. In 2010, the Secretary of State said that academies could become the norm, but that it was “down to individual schools” to make the decision, and I support that. Has he changed his mind, or was it always his intention that schools could decide their own destiny, as long as they chose the destiny he had chosen for them?
	Two of the schools affected—Nightingale primary school and Noel Park primary school—are in the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green supports forced academies,
	but her party’s manifesto in 2010 promised to give all schools the freedom to innovate. It is a strange freedom that allows schools to innovate on the ground, but only so far as the Secretary of State will allow from Whitehall.
	That freedom is not worth the name, and it is fundamentally different from the freedom the previous Government’s academy programme offered parents and pupils. The Labour academy programme took failing schools—schools that parents were running away from in droves, and where discipline had gone out the window—and gave them the freedom to innovate in the best interests of pupils, with the support and assistance of teachers and parents. That differs hugely from the current programme.
	The Government talk the language of localism and pluralism, but when it comes to the crunch, we see something quite different, which is driven solely by mandarins in Whitehall. That is fundamentally undemocratic. There is no collaboration whatever. Given that the Department’s Ministers are so well educated, it is a disgrace that not even the elected MP was worthy of a phone call or a letter. That is not the way one would usually expect Ministers to behave when such massive decisions are being made. The Minister has not even sought to get to the school or to spend any time there. Indeed, there is no record of his having spent any time in a Haringey primary in Tottenham. That is of huge concern, given the decision he is about to make.
	The proposals are a massive shift and a departure from the policy under the previous Government. The intellectually bankrupt idea that excellence is synonymous with only one structure is of huge concern, and it does not hold water. It should be abandoned, and I ask the Minister to give some contrite indication of a change of position.

Nick Gibb: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I know he has a close personal and constituency interest in the issue.
	Last June we made it clear that our absolute priority is to turn around underperforming primary schools by finding new academy sponsors for them. Our motivation is simply to raise standards for children. We want to find lasting solutions to underperformance so that all children have the same opportunities in life—opportunities that are enjoyed by children in areas neighbouring Haringey.
	The 2011 key stage 2 tests show that Haringey primary schools went backwards, dropping 4 percentage points and taking them below the national and London averages in English and maths. Haringey primary schools are the worst performing in inner London. They have the highest number of primary schools currently below the floor—

David Lammy: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Gibb: If I may, I should like to make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of chances to make his point—

David Lammy: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Gibb: I will give way very briefly.

David Lammy: I must ask the Minister to correct his use of the term “inner London”. The Department does not categorise Haringey schools as inner London schools, and it certainly does not fund them as such. Will he also confirm that the performance of the Isle of Wight, the Medway towns, Peterborough and Norfolk are all below that of Haringey, and tell us whether he will be seeking to ensure that they, too, will be forced to have academies?

Nick Gibb: On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, we agree with him that the funding system, which we inherited from his Government, is unfair and opaque. We want to increase its transparency, and we have put out a new approach for consultation. We will report on that in due course. We are taking action against all underperforming schools in the country. We are working co-operatively with local authorities that are co-operating with us. A different approach is being taken by Haringey, however, and that is why there is a difference in this particular instance.

David Lammy: I think that the leader and the chief executive of Haringey council would want me to place on record that they have been very co-operative with the Department in holding conversations about this matter. The Minister will know that the mainstay of resistance in Haringey has come from the schools themselves.

Nick Gibb: That is very good to hear.
	I should like to continue with the point that I was making. Haringey has the highest number of primary schools currently below the floor, out of all London authorities, and 12 primary schools there have been below the floor for three or more of the past six years. Demographically similar local authorities such as Hackney, Camden, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets all outperform Haringey at primary school level.
	The floor standard is a basic acceptable level of performance by a primary school. For the record, a school is below the floor if fewer than 60% of pupils are achieving level 4 or above in English and maths or failing to make average progress in English and maths. Insisting that schools educate their pupils to level 4 standard is not a huge objective; nor is it unachievable. Level 4 involves just the basics. To achieve a level 4 in reading, pupils need to be able to interpret and understand the meaning behind a simple story. In maths, all that is required is to be able to understand simple fractions and to add, subtract, multiply and divide without the help of a calculator.
	It is unacceptable that so many children in Haringey are being let down. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if a child leaves primary school without the basics, they will struggle at secondary school and throughout life. Those pupils face real disadvantages when starting secondary school and have extreme difficulty in catching up later.
	In my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s speech last week at Haberdashers’ Aske’s Hatcham college, he said that pupils cannot read to learn if they have not learned to read. They cannot begin to deal with more advanced mathematical concepts, or with physics or chemistry or any number of other subjects, if they have not grasped the fundamentals of arithmetic. No matter how good a secondary school is, there is a limit to the extent to which it can pick up the pieces. It is
	for that reason alone that we want to take action to secure sustainable improvements in a number of Haringey’s underperforming schools.

David Lammy: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Gibb: I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I want to continue to make my argument and address the points that he has made.
	Those are schools whose history of underperformance and ability to sustain improvements are causing us real concern. Downhills primary school was judged inadequate by Ofsted in 2002 and placed in special measures. It came out of special measures three years later in 2005, but improvements were not sustained, and in January 2010 it was again judged inadequate by Ofsted and required significant improvement. Key stage 2 results show that the school has failed to meet the floor standard since 2005. In 2011, 61% of pupils achieved level 4 or above in English and maths, with the other 39% of pupils failing to achieve that basic level. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is unacceptable for any school to have a large proportion of its pupils failing to achieve minimum standards year after year. We know that those standards can be met, however.

David Lammy: rose —

Nick Gibb: Let me make this final point before giving way. We know that that can be done. There are schools across London with intakes as challenging as those in Haringey, with proportions of pupils on free school meals and where English is not their first language, that are performing well above the standard. Let me cite one school I have visited in Tower Hamlets. In Osmani primary school, for example, 95.8% of pupils have English as an additional language and 58% are eligible for free school meals, yet that school has 88% achieving level 4 in English and maths. That is what we want to see happening in Haringey.

David Lammy: We all want to see that, but I say again to the Minister that in the boroughs that he prays in aid, each pupil is funded a great deal more than pupils in the London borough of Haringey. Why does he imagine that we do not need extra teachers and extra support to bring up those pupils’ standards, but that a structural change into an academy will fix that problem? Will he say something about why the structural change per se will fix that problem? Where there are academies that are failing—and there are—what will he do about it in five years’ time, given the autonomy that academies have?

Nick Gibb: I have to say that the academies programme was inherited from the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, as indeed was the funding system. Academies have made a tremendous difference in transforming underperforming schools, especially in secondary schools where this approach has been applied. The professionals have autonomy and new leadership is brought in. It has worked in practice.
	Let me make one or two things clear to the right hon. Gentleman. First, no decision about any school in Haringey has been taken at this stage. Officials have met the local authority regularly since July and they have met the relevant head teachers and chairs of governors
	in October, offering to visit any school wanting a further conversation. At all stages we have been clear that our goal is school improvement, and that we believe that the best route for achieving that is through schools becoming sponsored academies. We have sought to work with the local authority and schools to find solutions on which everyone can agree, as we have done successfully in many parts of the country, and as we continue to do successfully throughout the country.
	I agree about the importance of consulting the governing body, and this is why officials sought another meeting with each school in early December asking for their views on these proposals. The schools in Haringey have been given time to provide representations to the Secretary of State on his proposed action. Before giving us their views, we fully expect them to engage with the wider school community. We have already received a number of representations from parents, governors and the local community, both in support of and against the approach we are taking in Haringey, which we will take into consideration. When we have the representations from the schools, we will take a final decision and inform them. It would therefore be inappropriate and premature for me to comment further on the specific Downhills case until we have fully considered all those representations and the circumstances of the case.

David Lammy: Will the Minister confirm that the officials gave the governing body three weeks in which to find a sponsor—three weeks in which to go out and find some captain of industry to take over the school?

Nick Gibb: Discussions with the local authority have been going on in Haringey since July, and this is part of that process.
	Let me say that this is not happening in Haringey alone. The last Government opened 203 sponsored academies and we have opened another 132 since the election. We are working with local authorities across the country to secure better outcomes for their pupils by transforming these underperforming schools. Over 300 schools have now opened as sponsored academies, a further 1,194 have converted to academy status, and more than 700 maintained primary schools are either open to becoming academies or in the pipeline. Those range from small rural primaries to large urban primaries such as the 843-pupil Durand school in south London.
	I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we recognise the real effort that the governing bodies and staff of schools are making to improve the standards of education at their schools in the most challenging of circumstances. We want to help schools that, despite the best efforts of the staff, are struggling to sustain improvements. We believe that substantially different solutions are required—solutions that will help the most disadvantaged pupils to succeed. Academy status led by a strong sponsor is the best way of providing quick and sustainable improvements in order to prevent more children from leaving the school without at least the basic literacy and mathematical skills.
	Academy status has been very successful; it is a tried and tested model. A large body of evidence of pupil performance and independent reports show that the academy model—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).